Theoretical Aspects for Calculating the Mobilized Load during Suspension Training through a Mobile Application
, Luis M. Alegre 1, Patricia Maurelos-Castell 2, Vicent Picó Pérez 3 and Ignacio Ara 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for offer this interesting work. I believe the content is worthy of consideration for publication. However, I have listed a few points that may need to be addressed below. Additionally, there is a small note at the end of the list below that could prove useful as well.
Introduction –
Line 10: the Smartphone or a Smartphone
Line 11 – 14: this is a long sentence that needs to be broken into a few smaller sentences to aid in clarity and presentation of the information
Line 15: Remove ‘Some of’ (vague language)
Second paragraph: please consider a restructuring of the information
Line 23: Is ‘range’ the correct term? Diversity perhaps.
Line 27: ‘so-called’ can be removed
Line 25 – 30: to long of a sentence. Break it up in to several shorter sentences
Line 31-34: Break up.
Line 34 – 37: Does this belong in the Introduction or in the Methods section?
Also, elevate the language from common vernacular.
Line 39-43: Break up
Line 44: ‘proposals’ or proposed methods?
Line 45: tense agreement issue
Line 44-49: A one sentence paragraph. Break up.
Line 50-53: A one sentence paragraph
Line 54: remove ‘quickly’
Line 55: remove ‘some’
Line 57 – 60: to many ands. Break up into smaller points of information
Line 61: Reword ‘to solve the problem’. Address the issue of…perhaps.
Objective
The first objective can be reworded as to not combine two objectives.
The secondary objectives is stated as one objective with vague language.
Please consider rewording both points of information as to conform to the intent of the information being presented. Three objectives appear to be the direction of the research by these statements.
Methods
Line 73: is that wording correct? Susp?
Line 73 – 75: these can be broken into independent sentences to convey the information.
Line 80 – 83: break up
Line 83 – 85: May be better suited for the discussion section
Line 86-88: break into two sentences
Equation proposal:
Lines 96 -99: Figure 2 reference needed
Last paragraph: A Figure 3 reference is needed.
Results
Line 153: has or was? Tense issue perhaps
General observation: Is the font the same size throughout the document?
Line 156: remove ‘they’ and insert ‘the participant, athlete or subject’ any term that adds identity to the example being articulated.
A title for the chart is warranted
Line 165: data indicate, data does not show
Line 167: possessive terminology may not be appropriate
Line 174: data indicate
Line 178: Table 2?
Line 181: ‘we’ needs to be removed and replaced with less possessive terminology
Line 193: consistent placement of Figure titles is preferred (either above or below the figure)
Line 200: ‘It’ should be changed for specificity
General comments:
The concept of the manuscript is interesting. I believe the conclusions can be foundational to future advances. However, there are significant grammatical issues with the work at this point. I have noted a few in the comments above.
Please consider the points I have identified above. These are a few of the aspects I have noticed, yet there are other examples throughout the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
A very serious analyses done with deep knowledge on mathematics processes, with whom has been proven the initial idea. Try to keep the study as much as possible interesting for the sport analysis.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors
I think you have had a lot of trouble doing experiments and writing your thesis. Please refer to this review as I have listed the parts that I do not understand and need to be modified as follows.
Comments or Suggestions
Originally, are there no Abstract part?
Introduction: Missing information about the benefits of your study.
Experimental design: please, try to explain better the procedure. I find it confusing. What is the purpose from your experiment? In addition, there are no information about the subject. The description of the subject should be more specific. This is because external variables such as height, weight, muscle mass, and fat mass can affect suspension motion.
Originally, are there no Discussion part in this Journal? Limitations must be reported in the discussion section. If the study protocol was not previously, it must be declared as limitation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Well done! You attention to the comments made was excellent. After reading your newly edited manuscript it is indeed greatly improved. There are still a few grammatical errors in the folds of the manuscript. However, nothing that would distract the reader from consuming the information. Again, your effort in editing was significant and worthy of recognition.
