Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to thank the authors for the presented results of their investigation on plantar flexor voluntary measurement and the editor for the opportunity to review this manuscript.  

The manuscript entitled " Measuring plantar flexor voluntary activation and maximal voluntary contraction in a portable, seated method: a validity and reliability study" compared plantar flexor voluntary activation and maximal voluntary contraction measured with a portable device to those obtained using a standardised laboratory method, and evaluated the test-retest reliability of the portable protocol. The authors present an interesting topic that falls within the aims and scope of the Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology, but does not seem to fit the Special Issue: New Perspectives on Kinesiology and Functional Morphology in Team Sports. Since plantar flexor characteristics have been investigated throughout various variables, such as voluntary activation and maximal voluntary contraction, validation of the field protocol is always welcome.

The manuscript has a good outline and is easy to read. As mentioned above, the main question of this research is whether there are differences between portable and laboratory testing of voluntary activation and maximal contraction of the plantar flexor. The topic is relevant to the field, as the findings bridge the gap between science and practice by addressing the usability of field measurement. The results suggest clear differences between portable and laboratory measurements of plantar flexor, which is new compared to existing published materials. Further, the presented metrical characteristic of the field test indicated that it is a valid instrument for assessing plantar flexor attributes.

Methodology is appropriate. I would suggest that the authors consider moving the sample characteristics from the Results section to the Methods section since there was no intervention that would affect it. Also, it seems that what should be done with a sample of injured people does not belong to the introduction part of this manuscript (Lines 68, 69).

The conclusions are consistent with the presented evidence and logically follow from the reported results. They are supported by the data without overinterpretation and remain aligned with the analysis and discussion. Overall, the conclusion clearly addresses the main research question and reflects the study’s key findings.  

The research was conceptualized using relevant literature and demonstrates strong alignment with the existing scientific knowledge.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This study investigates the validity and test-retest reliability of a portable, seated protocol for assessing ankle plantar flexor voluntary activation using the interpolated twitch technique, compared with a laboratory-based isokinetic dynamometer. Overall, this is a well-written study of broad interest to the musculoskeletal research community; however, it would benefit from some methodological clarifications, deeper discussion of relevant issues, and more cautious framing of the conclusions. The following comments are offered for the authors’ consideration.

Methodology: For a study aiming to establish validity and reliability, several methodological details require clarification. Please add this to the manuscript or report it as a limitation:

Sample size justification: No a priori calculation is reported for either reliability or method comparison. This is essential for interpreting the robustness of the findings.

Assessor expertise: It is not specified whether a single assessor conducted all sessions, nor their level of experience with twitch interpolation and both devices. This is particularly relevant for reliability studies.

Blinding procedures: It is unclear whether participants were blinded to real-time force outputs or previous results, and whether assessors were blinded to prior session data.

Warm-up procedures: Only three submaximal contractions are described. It should be clarified whether any additional aerobic or mobility preparation was performed, particularly given the use of maximal dorsiflexion positioning.

Instrumentation details: As ankle joint range of motion is a key characteristic of the protocol and was used to standardize positioning, the manufacturer and model of the goniometer should be reported to ensure reproducibility and methodological transparency.

Discussion: Please expand the discussion on the following topics: The reproducibility of maximal dorsiflexion positioning, how biomechanical differences between setups may influence MVC and voluntary activation, whether the protocols are truly biomechanically comparable. Additionally, sex distribution and variability in physical activity levels may influence voluntary activation and MVC outcomes. These factors deserve deeper consideration in the discussion.

Please correct the typographical error “direcrtly” in line 378.

 

Conclusion: The conclusions should therefore be tempered to reflect that: No statistically significant differences were detected, equivalence was not formally tested and interchangeability for absolute values may be limited. The sample consisted of young, healthy, recreationally active individuals without musculoskeletal pathology. The conclusions should explicitly acknowledge this limitation and avoid extrapolation to clinical or pathological populations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

This manuscript addresses an important topic for the science of sports. The introduction is comprehensive and well referenced, providing a clear rationale for the study and situating it within current international literature. 

The study design is clearly described, and ethical approval and informed consent procedures are adequately reported. The methods section provides sufficient detail regarding participant recruitment, inclusion criteria, and data collection procedures. 

The statistical analyses appear appropriate for the study objectives, and the results are presented in a structured and transparent manner. Tables are generally clear and informative.

The discussions are in relation with reporting results and conclusions are clear. 

SUGGESTION

Participant subsection: I suggest to be more specific when you talk about "recreationally active". How did you evaluate? (IPAQ, questionnaire, self evaluation, etc..).   

Good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf