Next Article in Journal
Relationships among Early Adversity, Positive Human and Animal Interactions, and Mental Health in Young Adults
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Brain Electrical Activity, Heart Rate Variability, and Dual-Task Performance in Healthy and Fibromyalgia Women: A Study Protocol
Previous Article in Journal
Empowering Women in Finance through Developing Girls’ Financial Literacy Skills in the United States
Previous Article in Special Issue
Validity and Reliability of the Baby and Child Eating Behavior Questionnaire, Toddler Version (BEBQ-Mex and CEBQ-T-Mex) in a Low Sociodemographic Sample Recruited in a Mexican Hospital
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Relationship between Objectively and Subjectively Measured Physical Activity in Adolescents during and after COVID-19 Restrictions

Behav. Sci. 2021, 11(12), 177; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs11120177
by Armando Cocca 1,*, Klaus Greier 1,2, Clemens Drenowatz 3 and Gerhard Ruedl 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Behav. Sci. 2021, 11(12), 177; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs11120177
Submission received: 17 November 2021 / Revised: 3 December 2021 / Accepted: 8 December 2021 / Published: 11 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Physical Activity, Physical and Psychological Health)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting but not very original article. The authors compare the objective (accelerometers) and subjective (IPAQ) measurement of the physical activity of young people during the loockdown in Austria.
I have nothing to say about the methodology (even if the number of participants seems to me a little limited to reach the conclusions indicated) and the structure of the article, but rather about the originality and the theoretical references.
It would be interesting for the authors to refer to other similar research. There have been countless studies on the IPAQ and similar questionnaires (GPAQ etc.), on similar populations, and these studies should be mentioned in the introduction, also to put forward the partial originality of your work in relation to these previous studies They should also be mentioned in the conclusion too: the lockdown variable, what does it bring in addition to previous research?
Furthermore, in the introduction the authors could also indicate possible working hypotheses: what do they expect to find according to the mentioned researches?



Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

  • The first question: what was the reason why the authors chose such a small number of subjects for this research? is there any logical reasoning for this number? I think the number of participants is very small and I don't know how relevant are their results.It is very important that the authors justify very clearly this very important aspect of the research undertaken....
  • The citation system used in the paper is not the one required by the journal, please read the instructions for the authors
  • Line 114 - Activinsights Ltd., Kimbolton, UK - did all participants afford this device or was it borrowed from one subject to another? it is not understood in the methodology how the accelerometry was used for all the people involved in the study.
  • IPAQ - please add additional information about this assessment tool, how many questions it has, what was the score, etc.
  • Must be specified in the methodology when the participants took down the accelerometers, when they sleep? when did they wash? please specify exactly the required information
  • Point after each title of tables/figures
  • Besides the correlations I think that other statistical analyzes are necessary to calculate, there are too few calculations presented
  • I did not understand if the authors presented what were the limits of this study
  • Institutional Review Board Statement - what was the ethical number?
  • Please put abbreviation for all journals

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations to the authors for the changes made, I recommend the publication

Back to TopTop