Review Reports
by
- Weihsun Tai 1,2,3,†,
- Hsiente Peng 3,4,† and
- Jianlong Huang 1,*
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Hello
I have recommended to the editor that this paper needs extensive revisions for English grammar. Listed below are some of my comments. I only got 1/2-way through the introduction. I look forward to reviewing this after the paper is revised.
There are some abbrev in the abstract (Ecc-RFD, GA, TA, CaR) that should be spelled out first
Line 26: Starting with “RSJ can improve….” Is confusing. It seems like there are several thoughts there. Would recommend revising into a couples sentences
Line 28: Staring with “Morever…”. If this wasn’t tested in the study, it should not be in the abstract
Line 35: is there a better word than “factors”. Skills?
Line 35-37: this sentence is confusing. I am not sure what the purpose is or I would suggest a revision
Line 37-40: Should revise into a couple sentences. Also don’t have take-off twice right next to each other
Line 40: performance (and delete competitive)
Line 41: has grammar mistakes
Line 43: grammar mistake: “..they must breakthrough defend or increase offensive opportunity…”. I am not sure what the authors are attempting to state
Author Response
I have recommended to the editor that this paper needs extensive revisions for English grammar. Listed below are some of my comments. I only got 1/2-way through the introduction. I look forward to reviewing this after the paper is revised.
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer the new manuscript.
There are some abbrev in the abstract (Ecc-RFD, GA, TA, CaR) that should be spelled out first
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer to page 1, line: 25-26.
Line 26: Starting with “RSJ can improve….” Is confusing. It seems like there are several thoughts there. Would recommend revising into a couples sentences
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer to page 1, line: 27-28.
Line 28: Staring with “Morever…”. If this wasn’t tested in the study, it should not be in the abstract
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer to page 1, line: 28-30.
Line 35: is there a better word than “factors”. Skills?
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer to page 1, line: 35.
Line 35-37: this sentence is confusing. I am not sure what the purpose is or I would suggest a revision
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer to page 1, line: 35-37.
Line 37-40: Should revise into a couple sentences. Also don’t have take-off twice right next to each other
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer to page 1, line: 37-40.
Line 40: performance (and delete competitive)
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer to page 1, line: 40.
Line 41: has grammar mistakes
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer to page 1, line: 41.
Line 43: grammar mistake: “..they must breakthrough defend or increase offensive opportunity…”. I am not sure what the authors are attempting to state
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer to page 1, line: 41-44.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Introduction
If kicking leg is right foot, then take-off jump leg in long jump is usually the left leg.
Sample
Sample size small and from a specific cohort of basketballers re ability level, so generalisations are limited. These limitations should be identified. This is more an exploratory study of concept not a definitive study. Increase sample size and spectrum of ability levels to improve generalisability of results.
Measurement protocols relevant, however more information can be extracted from the data collected.
Analysis
The data indicate some differences based on t-test analysis comparing fast approach to preferred approach. However, the jump heights using the two different approaches are different. In other words, kinematic, kinetic and EMG differences did not contribute to performance difference. Multiple comparisons made so add Bonferroni correction, that is, .05, divided by the number of t-tests in the analysis as selected level of significance.
4.
Results
Do the results actually predict relationship? So, some predictive statistics required.
As all predictor variables and the performance measure are ratio level variables run a Pearson product moment correlation of jump height with all the predictor variables to assess if ant significant correlations occur and the r square value from correlation indicates the common variance between the variables, which will probably be negligible in most cases. If any relationship statistically important run regression analysis to derive a predictive relationship.
Run solutions based on different type of jump approaches. Then you can indicate if all the predictor variables have some importance in predicting jump height and suggest appropriate training.
Discussion descriptive not inferential.
Author Response
If kicking leg is right foot, then take-off jump leg in long jump is usually the left leg.
Response: Thanks for your comments.
The present study aimed to clarify the biomechanical characteristics and muscle activation condition of the lower extremities during RSJ. The dominant leg is not a major effect we consider, and we have added an assumed describing in the text. See line:117-118.
Sample
Sample size small and from a specific cohort of basketballers re ability level, so generalisations are limited. These limitations should be identified. This is more an exploratory study of concept not a definitive study. Increase sample size and spectrum of ability levels to improve generalisability of results.
Response: Thanks for your comments. To minimum the sample size and ability level limit, we provided effect size (cohen's d), Pearson correlations, and the r square value between the variables. It's may help for clear the result of this study. See line:152-158 and table 1.
Measurement protocols relevant, however more information can be extracted from the data collected.
Response: Thanks for your comments. We added the marker set detail, see line:104-108
Analysis
The data indicate some differences based on t-test analysis comparing fast approach to preferred approach. However, the jump heights using the two different approaches are different. In other words, kinematic, kinetic and EMG differences did not contribute to performance difference. Multiple comparisons made so add Bonferroni correction, that is, .05, divided by the number of t-tests in the analysis as selected level of significance.
Response: Thanks for your comments. We have added Bonferroni correction to adjust the p-value for multiple comparisons in tests, the alpha level for the statistical tests was set at α = .005 after Bonferroni correction adjust. see line: 152-158.
4.
Results
Do the results actually predict relationship? So, some predictive statistics required.
As all predictor variables and the performance measure are ratio level variables run a Pearson product moment correlation of jump height with all the predictor variables to assess if ant significant correlations occur and the r square value from correlation indicates the common variance between the variables, which will probably be negligible in most cases. If any relationship statistically important run regression analysis to derive a predictive relationship.
Run solutions based on different type of jump approaches. Then you can indicate if all the predictor variables have some importance in predicting jump height and suggest appropriate training.
Response: Thanks for your comments. We have added a Pearson correlation test of jump height with all the variables. See table 2.
Discussion descriptive not inferential.
Response: Thanks for your comments. The present study aimed to clarify the biomechanical characteristics and muscle activation condition of the lower extremities during RSJ. There was more descriptive detail from the figures in the discussion. Simultaneously, the result of this research did not show too many significantly difference. The descriptive was mainly part of the discussion, and a few inferential results were mention. We induction the results of present and previous research to a possible inferential.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 18: investigated
Line 21: preferred
Line 36: lay-ups are common skills
Line 36: needs revision for grammar – at the end of the sentence
Need to spell out RSJ (see line 37)
Line 41: Starting with For example – the first part of the sentence is grammatically awkward
Stat analysis section – some of the language is too conversational. For example “Also we add…” Instead: A Bonferroni correction was used to….
The sentence: Due to the… seems to be missing something.
Line 160: is it the GRF was higher? I can’t tell. Needs revision for grammar
Line 171: shows the variables after statistics is grammatically awkward
Author Response
Line 18: investigated
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer to line: 18
Line 21: preferred
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer to line: 21
Line 36: lay-ups are common skills
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer to line: 36
Line 36: needs revision for grammar – at the end of the sentence
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer to line: 36
Need to spell out RSJ (see line 37)
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer to line: 37
Line 41: Starting with For example – the first part of the sentence is grammatically awkward
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer to line: 41
Stat analysis section – some of the language is too conversational. For example “Also we add…” Instead: A Bonferroni correction was used to….
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer to line: 154
The sentence: Due to the… seems to be missing something.
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer to line: 152
Line 160: is it the GRF was higher? I can’t tell. Needs revision for grammar
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer to line: 160
Line 171: shows the variables after statistics is grammatically awkward
Response: Thanks for your comments. It was revised. Please refer to line: 171-175
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf