Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It appears that more research in this area is warranted; however, the introduction needs to be more developed and provide a bit more detail (and references). The methods section is well organized but needs additional essential information. Results, discussion, and conclusion are consistent with the study's primary purpose; over statements in the discussion need to be addressed. There are several word choice, word tense, and grammatical errors; reference format errors need attention. See specific comments in the pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

we have adressed your observations. Please, see the pdf attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines gender differences in postural control during adolescence, with particular emphasis on open- and closed-eye conditions. The authors clearly formulate the research problem, provide a comprehensive review of the literature, and precisely describe the methodology, including participant selection, measurement procedures, and analyzed parameters. The results are consistently presented in tables and show convincing differences in favor of girls, supporting the hypothesis of earlier maturation of postural control. The discussion is extensive and well connected to existing research, while the conclusion highlights the practical implications in the fields of motor development, sports training, and injury prevention.

An important contribution of the paper lies in the clear presentation of gender differences during a critical developmental period and in the use of measurement parameters that allow for quantitative comparison. The applied methodology and ethical framework of the study add further rigor, and the finding that differences are more pronounced under more demanding conditions (closed eyes) makes the work particularly relevant.

At the same time, the paper could be improved in several important aspects. The absence of visual representations of the experimental setup and graphical presentations of the results reduces the clarity and readability of the manuscript, while the discussion at time remains more descriptive than analytical. Furthermore, the data collection and processing procedures are not fully transparent. Although the description of the device and measured parameters is provided, it remains unclear how the raw sensor signals were transformed into the reported indicators. The authors are encouraged to clarify whether the data processing was conducted using proprietary software, which algorithms or filters were applied, and over what time intervals the measures were calculated. Such information is essential for ensuring the reproducibility of the study. In addition, the manuscript would benefit from a stronger emphasis on the specific contribution of this study compared to previous work, as well as a more detailed elaboration of the practical implications of the findings. Finally, the relatively small sample size and the geographic limitation make the results preliminary, and this limitation should be explicitly stated.

Overall, the paper provides valuable insights into gender differences in adolescent postural control and represents a useful contribution to the literature on motor development. With improvements in the presentation of results, inclusion of visual material, and a more critical examination of the findings, the paper could achieve greater clarity and impact.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

we have adressed your observations. Please, see the pdf attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision have substantially improved the manuscript. There are a few remaining word tense and word choice errors; and 3 instances of one-sentence paragraphs that need to be revised. See specific comments in the pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

attached you can find the point by point responses.

We truly thank the reviewers for their useful suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with most of the authors’ responses and find that the manuscript has been significantly improved compared to the original version. Nevertheless, I believe a few minor but meaningful revisions are still needed. The authors have included graphs of the results and expanded the description of the data collection setting. Still, the manuscript would benefit further from including at least a schematic representation of the experimental setup. If photographs are not available, a conceptual diagram (for example, showing sensor placement on the body or the testing environment), or a manufacturer-provided image of the device with proper citation, would greatly enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the study. Additionally, for better clarity, each figure in the Results section should be explicitly referenced and interpreted, so that readers can clearly understand their relevance and connection to the findings. Finally, I kindly ask the authors to correct the notation of measurement units in the graphs (Figures 1,3,5 & 7) by using cm² with superscript instead of cm^2.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

attached you can find the point by point responses.

We truly thank the reviewers for their useful suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf