Optimal Recovery Time for Post-Activation Performance Enhancement After an Acute Bout of Plyometric Exercise on Unilateral Countermovement Jump and Postural Sway in National-Level Female Volleyball Players
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy comments are included in PDF file, please read them thoroughly.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled “Optimal recovery time for post-activation potentiation after an acute bout of plyometric exercise on unilateral countermovement jump and postural sway in national-level female volleyball players” was evaluated. The article presents important information, however, for it to be submitted for publication, some adjustments need to be made.
Below are some issues that should be better clarified, as well as adjustments that should be made. Please kindly allow any changes to the manuscript to be presented in a different color from the text or highlighted in yellow to make it easier for the reviewer to find them in the text.
Abstract:
1- Make it clearer in the abstract methodology whether the CMJ was performed unilaterally or with both legs at the same time. After all, when reading the abstract, it is not clear whether both the CMJ and the postural sway were unilateral or whether only the postural sway was unilateral.
2- Present more information about the participants, such as height and body mass index, and check in the results whether there is an association or correlation with these factors, since they can influence the outcome variables.
3- In the results, present the “r” and “p” values for each of the correlations verified, this makes it easier for the reader to verify how the analyses were performed.
Introduction
4- On line 40, check if the word “muscle’s” is correct.
5- I noticed that the introduction is a bit long, with paragraphs that could be more objective. Please shorten the paragraphs a bit.
6- Another issue that was noticed during the reading was the fact that the justification for the study was not explored enough in the introduction. Please try to address a bit more about the effects of PAP, and how literature has addressed this topic from molecular to applied issues to evaluate the effects of CMJ and balance. By reducing the more generic information in the initial paragraphs, you can include this information without lengthening the introduction.
Materials and Methods
7- I did not find a clinical trial record in the text. Did you register for the study? If so, please include the link to the study and the registration number.
8- Which program was used to randomize the groups in relation to the rest times?
9- In Figure 1, please restructure it to show how many athletes were in each group. Also, make clear in the figure and in the text whether all athletes were tested at all rest times.
Results
10- Check the formatting of tables 1, 2 and 3, because on the left side the line numbers are joining with the table parameters.
11- As mentioned in the methodology section, in tables 2 and 3, I need to know if all 24 participants performed all the jumping stages, and did you combine them all? If so, an important question to be analyzed is whether the 48-hour interval affected the athletes' performance before you combined all the information, that is, did the person who was in group R2 on the first day present different results than the people who were in group R2 on the second, third and fourth days?
12- Regarding figures 2 and 3, I believe it would be better for the reader if you presented the information to everyone on a single line, indicating the mean points and standard deviation. This would make the figures more objective and easier to interpret.
Discussion
13- In general terms, the discussion is well described, however, as pointed out in the introduction, there are very long paragraphs that need to be reduced or separated. Please check this issue.
14- It was also noticed in the discussion that there are sections with repeated results, I think that if this issue were reduced the discussion would be more objective and focused on explaining the results instead of repeating them.
15- In the discussion, I felt there was a lack of possible explanations starting from the molecular level reaching the information applied in the tests, please use information from basic science to help explain the findings.
16- In line 447, you mention a 24-hour interval between evaluations, however, in the methodology it mentions 48 hours. Could you clarify this issue?
17- I believe that the final sentence of the discussion (lines 455 and 456: “Further research examining these factors could provide deeper insights into the PAP mechanism and its effects on athletic performance”) could be removed. It is information that does not add to the study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
The presentation of the article adequately addresses the hypothesised characteristics. However, I have noted a few things that could be improved.
In material and methods, consider adding in the analysis they performed in G*Power the effect size chosen for the sample size.
In the statistical analysis, mention the model and type used for the ICC (e.g., model: two-way mixed, single measures, type: consistency).
In the presentation of your results, consider adding in the ANOVAs, the statistical power (e.g. F(4, 96) = 7.82, p = 0.01, ƞ² = 0.25, 1-β = XX).
If you feel that reporting the magnitude of change in your results may provide more information, consider using effect sizes (other than eta squared) such as Cohen's d, with their respective confidence intervals.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive comments and feedback. We are confident that the manuscript has improved greatly as a result. We have responded to all comments below and highlighted changes in the manuscript in blue.
Comment 1: In material and methods, consider adding in the analysis they performed in G*Power the effect size chosen for the sample size.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have now included the effect size (ES=0.40).
Comment 2: In the statistical analysis, mention the model and type used for the ICC (e.g., model: two-way mixed, single measures, type: consistency).
Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have now clarified that we used ICC 2,1 with a two-way random effects model and absolute agreement for a single measure (ICC 2,1) in the statistical analysis.
Comment 3: In the presentation of your results, consider adding in the ANOVAs, the statistical power (e.g. F(4, 96) = 7.82, p = 0.01, ƞ² = 0.25, 1-β = XX).
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have now included the 1-β values in the presentation of the ANOVA results, as recommended.
Comment 4: If you feel that reporting the magnitude of change in your results may provide more information, consider using effect sizes (other than eta squared) such as Cohen's d, with their respective confidence intervals.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have now added Cohen's d values for the pairwise comparisons to better illustrate the magnitude of change in our results.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I highly respect Your impressive amount of work to improve the quality of the manuscript - the preparation of the manuscript is on a high level.
However, despite rewriting the introduction based on my suggestions, I found the authors' lack of understanding regarding PAPE phenomenon. The proper citations were indeed implemented, but it does not seem to me as the authors truly understand the concerns regarding PAPE. The authors still suggest that their effect of CA was based on recovery on energetic systems and I simply cannot agree with based on current PAPE literature. Also, in my opinion, the practical applications of this work are still extremely limited.
Thus, I recommended the editors to reject this manuscript from publication in Applied Sciences. I cannot predict the final decision of the editors but I wish the authors all the best and possible publication of this manuscript in another journal.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your feedback. We have responded to your comment below.
Comment: I highly respect your impressive amount of work to improve the quality of the manuscript - the preparation of the manuscript is on a high level. However, despite rewriting the introduction based on my suggestions, I found the authors' lack of understanding regarding PAPE phenomenon. The proper citations were indeed implemented, but it does not seem to me as the authors truly understand the concerns regarding PAPE. The authors still suggest that their effect of CA was based on recovery on energetic systems and I simply cannot agree with based on current PAPE literature. Also, in my opinion, the practical applications of this work are still extremely limited.
Response: Thank you again for your feedback and for pointing out the concerns regarding our interpretation of the PAPE phenomenon. As we fully agree with your previous suggestions, we have revised the structure of the paper to focus on PAPE instead of PAP. Our study design aligns with PAPE principles, and we are grateful for your recommendation.
Regarding your concern about PAPE and recovery intervals, there is substantial recent research on this topic. In a recent systematic review with meta-analysis, jump-based and squat-based (heavy-load) PAPE methods were found to produce significant acute enhancements in jump height and sprint times, with optimal effects occurring between 0-15 minutes and 0-10 minutes post-intervention, respectively, in team sport athletes. Since our study employed a jump-based exercise (repetitive CMJ), our findings align with the conclusions of this meta-analysis (DOI: 10.1007/s12662-024-01014-9). Another recent systematic review and meta-analysis identified the type of CA and recovery time as key factors influencing the magnitude of PAPE (DOI: 10.1007/s40279-024-02170-6). Additionally, a rest interval of 4–9 minutes was found to have a beneficial impact on jump height, with an interval range of 4–7 minutes appearing to be the most effective rest period between CA and jumping performance (DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2023.1202789). Several other important studies also emphasize the importance of recovery intervals in optimizing PAPE outcomes DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004939; DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10031; 10.3390/children10010053).
The optimization of the PAPE effect also depends on energy metabolism, and exercise CA may deplete energy stores, potentially impairing performance (DOI: 10.1007/s40279-015-0376-x). While we acknowledge the role of energetic recovery in our study, we believe that our findings may not fully capture the complexities of PAPE as suggested by recent literature. We are open to revisiting this aspect to ensure a more accurate interpretation in line with the current understanding of PAPE.
Finally, we believe that our PAPE method (i.e., 30-second repetitive CMJ) can be easily incorporated into training routines, even during competition periods, to enhance athletic performance. Even if it results in a slight improvement, we believe that it can be practically performed, especially for high-level competitive athletes. Overall, we respect your final decision, yet we have endeavored to present related literature and expand upon our findings in this regard. Thank you again for your valuable input.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors and editor, First of all, thank you for sending the comments and the adjusted text confirms most of the points. In my opinion, the only issue missing in the study would be the registration of the clinical trial, since it is a study with human beings and that presented an intervention. However, I leave it to the editor to make this decision. Furthermore, after checking the adjustments and responding to the comments, I think the manuscript could be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your feedback. We have responded to your comment below.
Comment: Dear authors and editor, First of all, thank you for sending the comments and the adjusted text confirms most of the points. In my opinion, the only issue missing in the study would be the registration of the clinical trial, since it is a study with human beings and that presented an intervention. However, I leave it to the editor to make this decision. Furthermore, after checking the adjustments and responding to the comments, I think the manuscript could be accepted for publication.
Response: Thank you again for your feedback. We obtained ethical approval in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki from the Clinical Research Review Board at our institution. Registration of the clinical trial is not mandatory. We have conducted similar studies in this manner. After reviewing papers published in MDPI journals, particularly in Applied Sciences (including those in the current special issue), it is evident that clinical trial registration is not a requirement. Thank you once again for your support throughout the revision process and for your final decision.
