Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It seems that some aspects are not mentioned in the discussion and are important, above all for the phoria measurement.

It is important to highlight that the phoria with contact lenses and with glasses does not have to be the same. The accommodation needed dependending on the refractive error compensation is different, which affects the accommodation/convergence relationship and thus to the phoria. In fact, this may be a methodological error, because this change may affect the results without being a study variable. So perhaps, this study would be more reliable if all its participants were emmetropes.

In addition, the influence to the curvature of the swimming goggles lens may have importance in the phoria measurement and it is not discussed and may be optically relevant.

However, there is much discussion about the pressure exerted by hats, which in my opinion, may have less influence than the aspects that are not mentioned.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your thoughtful review of our work.

All comments have been valuable and helpful in revising and improving our paper.

We were rechecked the manuscript by the native English speakers once again.

Please see the attachment.

Thanks again for your valuable advice.

Sincerely,

Dong-Sik Yu on the behalf of all authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well writing and it is significative in my area (sport optometry)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We greatly appreciate your positive comments on our manuscript. In order to improve it even more, we  rechecked thoroughly for correct grammar and language by native English language editors.

Sincerely,

Dong-Sik Yu on behalf of all authors

-----

Responses to Reviewer :

The paper is well writing and it is significative in my area (sport optometry)

 Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comment and positive review.

-----

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a paper that shows the effect of swim cap and/or googles on phoria and vergence. This is well designed.

- table 1: should be presented data in different groups

- it should be clearer how many patients are included in each group.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We would like to thank for the helpful suggestions made by the Reviewer. 

In order to improve it even more, we included your valuable comments.

Please see the attachment.

Sincerely, 

Dong-Sik Yu on the behalf of all authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf