Relationship Between Shooting Performance and Biomechanical Parameters Associated with Body Stability in Archery: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

biomechanics-3669912

Reviewer's Comments

 

In the submitted manuscript, the author(s) provide a Systematic Review regarding the relationship of shooting performance and biomechanical parameters with balance and stability in archery. Results revealed a negative relationship between body sway and performance (lower body sway is associated with better accuracy).  

The manuscript is properly structured and describes a study where good practices for conducting a systematic review were performed. However, there is a number of topics that need to be considered.

 

General Comments

1. LL83-84: further elaboration is required to provide a clear rationale relating the aim of the study.
2. LL141-142: provide the rationale for running the handsearching along with the traditional search procedure and clarify if it was within the 4 databases searched (as mentioned in L282) or was it a general search. If the latter applies for the additional manual search that was conducted, it is suggested to examine the following articles that satisfy the inclusion criteria:

• Nasoulas, A., Panoutsakopoulos, V., Tsigilis, N., & Kollias, I. A. (2016). The Modification of the Initial Stance Differentiates the Balance Parameters of the Aiming Phase in Re-curve Archery. Inquiries in Sport & Physical Education, 14(2), 114-124.
• Şimşek, D., Cerrah, A. O., & Ertan, H. (2013). The comparison of balance abilities of recurve, compound and traditional archery: a preliminary study. Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(2), 93-99.

1. LL249-277: It is suggested to provide the citations where “studies” are mentioned.
2. LL249-277: It is also recommended to discuss further the mechanisms relating to the neuromuscular component of controlling body sway while submitted in the perturbations caused by the tension of the bow and the aiming itself.
3. Provide the recommendations for future research in a separate (preferably the last) paragraph of the Discussion.
4. The Conclusion section could be benefited by providing some tips for practitioners.

 

Specific Comments

• L3: provide details of the type of archery (recurve?).
• L70: It is suggested delete “previous” in the phrase “Data from these previous studies”.
• L142: “by handle search”= see the 2^nd General Comment. It is proposed to refer to “manual search”.
• L249: rephrase “Although studies are scarce” for better clarity.
• LL280-283: It is recommended to elaborate on the reasoning why the provided statements are considered as strengths rather than limitations of the study.
• Check the references as some journal titles are provided in full (i.e., refs. #2, #6, #27-31) rather than in their abbreviated form.
• Note also for ref. #31: Journal of Functional …

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The points where English Language is suggested to by improved are noted in the comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer.

Thank you for your valuable revisions and insightful suggestions. We sincerely believe they will greatly enhance the quality of our manuscript.

 

COMMENT 1: In the submitted manuscript, the author(s) provide a Systematic Review regarding the relationship of shooting performance and biomechanical parameters with balance and stability in archery. Results revealed a negative relationship between body sway and performance (lower body sway is associated with better accuracy).  

The manuscript is properly structured and describes a study where good practices for conducting a systematic review were performed. However, there is a number of topics that need to be considered.

RESPONSE 1: Thank you for your comment.

 

COMMENT 2: LL83-84: further elaboration is required to provide a clear rationale relating the aim of the study.

RESPONSE 2: Thank you for your comment. To clarify this point, the following sentence was added to the final paragraph of the Introduction section.: “Thus, if it is verified that any of the described parameters is clearly associated with performance in archery, it may imply the use of technologies that allow their monitoring and provide feedback on them during training.” – P3L95

 

COMMENT 3: LL141-142: provide the rationale for running the handsearching along with the traditional search procedure and clarify if it was within the 4 databases searched (as mentioned in L282) or was it a general search. If the latter applies for the additional manual search that was conducted, it is suggested to examine the following articles that satisfy the inclusion criteria:

• Nasoulas, A., Panoutsakopoulos, V., Tsigilis, N., & Kollias, I. A. (2016). The Modification of the Initial Stance Differentiates the Balance Parameters of the Aiming Phase in Re-curve Archery. Inquiries in Sport & Physical Education, 14(2), 114-124.
• Şimşek, D., Cerrah, A. O., & Ertan, H. (2013). The comparison of balance abilities of recurve, compound and traditional archery: a preliminary study. Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(2), 93-99.

RESPONSE 3: Thank you for your comment and the opportunity to clarify this matter. First, it was a general search. Accordingly, the 2.2. Search Strategy and Selection Process point was improved: “Additionally, a general manual search of articles was also conducted (using the references of the selected articles) to ensure that no relevant study was omitted from this systematic review.” – P3L127

Thank you for suggesting these articles. Both were included in the systematic review. Accordingly, Figure 1, Table 1 and 2 were improved.

 

COMMENT 4: LL249-277: It is suggested to provide the citations where “studies” are mentioned.

RESPONSE 4: Thank you for your comment. These references were introduced in accordance with what was mentioned.

 

COMMENT 5: LL249-277: It is also recommended to discuss further the mechanisms relating to the neuromuscular component of controlling body sway while submitted in the perturbations caused by the tension of the bow and the aiming itself.

RESPONSE 5: Thank you for your comment. The discussion was addressed: “To reinforce this idea, it is essential to discuss the neuromuscular mechanisms involved in controlling these joints under the perturbations caused by bow tension and the act of aiming. According to a previous study that examined muscular activation strategies among archers of varying expertise levels [41], elite archers showed reduced use of distal (forearm) muscles and greater reliance on proximal (shoulder) and axial (trapezius) muscles. In contrast, mid-level and novice archers relied more heavily on distal muscles. This differential muscle usage was identified as a key factor influencing the horizontal oscillation of the bowstring. Another study also addressed this issue [42], finding that elite archers exhibited greater activation of the extensor digitorum. This suggests that they avoid gripping the bow handle not only by relaxing the flexor muscles but also by actively contracting the extensor muscle groups. This muscular strategy helps prevent interference with the bow's forward movement, i.e., the acceleration caused by the bowstring's pushing force.” – P11L279.

 

COMMENT 6: Provide the recommendations for future research in a separate (preferably the last) paragraph of the Discussion.

RESPONSE 6: Thank you for your comment. The recommendations for future research were in the last paragraph of the Discussion, according to the reviewer’s comment.

 

COMMENT 7: The Conclusion section could benefit by providing some tips for practitioners.

RESPONSE 7: Thank you for your comment. In accordance, this text was added: “This way, archers could use force or pressure plates during training to monitor performance data and make adjustments to improve their technique.” – P12L329.

 

COMMENT 8: L3: provide details of the type of archery (recurve?).

RESPONSE 8: Thank you for your comment. There were no limitations in the inclusion criteria of this systematic review regarding the type of bow used. In this sense, we believe that it is not relevant to specify the type of bow.

 

COMMENT 9: L70: It is suggested delete “previous” in the phrase “Data from these previous studies”.

RESPONSE 9: Thank you for your comment. The text was modified as suggested.

 

COMMENT 10: L142: “by handle search”= see the 2^nd General Comment. It is proposed to refer to “manual search”.

RESPONSE 10: Thank you for your comment. The text was modified as suggested.

 

COMMENT 11: L249: rephrase “Although studies are scarce” for better clarity.

RESPONSE 11: Thank you for your comment. The text was modified as suggested: “The data suggest that a lower bow sway is associated with better shooting performance, although the number of studies on this topic is limited to just five [8-10,36,38].” – P11L275

 

COMMENT 12: LL280-283: It is recommended to elaborate on the reasoning why the provided statements are considered as strengths rather than limitations of the study.

RESPONSE 12: You are right. However, we made an error in how we expressed the idea. What we meant to say is that having no language restrictions allowed us to include all the articles found, including the one you suggested (i.e., Nasoulas, A., Panoutsakopoulos, V., Tsigilis, N., & Kollias, I. A. (2016). The Modification of the Initial Stance Differentiates the Balance Parameters of the Aiming Phase in Re-curve Archery. Inquiries in Sport & Physical Education, 14(2), 114-124). This way, the text was changed: “Moreover, the absence of language restrictions enabled us to include all relevant articles found in this systematic review.” P12L302.

 

COMMENT 13: Check the references as some journal titles are provided in full (i.e., refs. #2, #6, #27-31) rather than in their abbreviated form. Note also for ref. #31: Journal of Functional

RESPONSE 13: Thank you for your comment. The references were modified as suggested.

COMMENT 14: Comments on the Quality of English Language

The points where English Language is suggested to by improved are noted in the comments.

RESPONSE 14: Thank you for your comment. The text was modified as suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper titled, “Relationship of shooting performance and biomechanical parameters associated with body stability in archery: systematic review”. Overall, I enjoyed reviewing this document and believe it is eligible for publication. However, there are several issues that I would like to resolve before publication. Recommendation: Minor to moderate revision required.

 

See my specific comments below.

 

Overall Assessment

This manuscript presents a systematic review that explores the association between biomechanical parameters of body stability and shooting performance in archery. The topic is original and relevant, particularly within the context of optimizing athletic performance in precision sports. The review is generally well-structured, adheres to PRISMA guidelines, and applies a validated tool for assessing methodological quality.

 

1. Introduction

In general, I suggest strengthening the justification of the study by including a paragraph with relevant research on the relationship between shooting performance and biomechanical parameters associated with body stability in other shooting sports.

 

2. Methods

2.1 Eligibility Criteria

Line 99 “studies that evaluated disabled participants were excluded”. What is the reason?

Suggestion: “Studies involving disabled populations were excluded due to the potential differences in neuromuscular control mechanisms, which may limit comparability with able-bodied archers.”

 

2.2 Search Strategy and Selection Process

Why were MEDLINE Complete, Sport Discus, Cochrane Reviews, and CINAHL included in the search? and why were (for example) PubMed or Scopus not included?

 

Line 110. Why have the keywords not been included in (3) selection by title and abstract?

 

2.4 Risk of Bias Assessment

Would it be possible to report on inter-rater reliability for quality assessment? (e.g. agreement using Cohen's kappa index)

 

3. Results

Lines 141-142. What does "handle search" mean? What does "Identification of studies via other methods" mean (Figure 2)?

 

Line 200. Why hasn't a meta-analysis been conducted? Could this be an answer?

Due to substantial heterogeneity in study designs, measurement techniques, and outcome variables, a meta-analysis was not feasible. Future research may aim to standardize outcome definitions and data collection methods to allow for quantitative synthesis.

 

4. Discussion

 

Lines 240-248 argue that the center of gravity has not been analyzed in any of the selected studies. In this regard, I suggest including other methodological contributions or relevant conclusions in studies related to other shooting sports (rifle, pistol, etc.) that have also analyzed postural sway.

 

Lines 255-257. This joint stabilization involves (among other things) a type of isometric muscle contractions that can be recorded using EMG. Some studies have recorded EMG during isometric contractions in tasks requiring maximum movement precision. I suggest including some of these articles to reinforce the argument presented.

 

In general, the three paragraphs prior to the last discussion (lines 249-277) present various arguments without any bibliographic references to support them, even if they use sports other than archery. I suggest further scientific evidence to support these arguments.

 

5. Conclusion

The conclusion states (lines 287-289): "On the other hand, none of the selected studies analyzed COG data. Thus, future research should also focus on evaluating COG, as it is a key parameter in evaluating postural stability." I believe this conclusion is not sufficiently substantiated in the discussion to be considered a conclusion of the study.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer.

Thank you for your valuable revisions and insightful suggestions. We sincerely believe they will greatly enhance the quality of our manuscript.

 

COMMENT 1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper titled, “Relationship of shooting performance and biomechanical parameters associated with body stability in archery: systematic review”. Overall, I enjoyed reviewing this document and believe it is eligible for publication. However, there are several issues that I would like to resolve before publication. Recommendation: Minor to moderate revision required.

Overall Assessment

This manuscript presents a systematic review that explores the association between biomechanical parameters of body stability and shooting performance in archery. The topic is original and relevant, particularly within the context of optimizing athletic performance in precision sports. The review is generally well-structured, adheres to PRISMA guidelines, and applies a validated tool for assessing methodological quality.

RESPONSE 1: Thank you for your comment.

 

COMMENT 2: Introduction. In general, I suggest strengthening the justification of the study by including a paragraph with relevant research on the relationship between shooting performance and biomechanical parameters associated with body stability in other shooting sports.

RESPONSE 2: Thank you for your comment. The Introduction section was strengthen as suggested: “In shooting sports, several studies have related shooting performance and these biomechanical parameters associated with body stability, i.e., higher COP sway generally led to poorer performance in rifle shooting [18–20]. Moreover, top-level rifle shooters showed superior stability, particularly in the seconds before firing, while novices showed in-creased COP sway during lower-scoring shots [21].” – P2L72.

 

 

 

 

COMMENT 3: 2.1 Eligibility Criteria

Line 99 “studies that evaluated disabled participants were excluded”. What is the reason?

Suggestion: “Studies involving disabled populations were excluded due to the potential differences in neuromuscular control mechanisms, which may limit comparability with able-bodied archers.”

RESPONSE 3: Thank you for your comment. The text was modified as suggested – P3L112.

 

COMMENT 4: 2.2 Search Strategy and Selection Process

Why were MEDLINE Complete, Sport Discus, Cochrane Reviews, and CINAHL included in the search? and why were (for example) PubMed or Scopus not included?

RESPONSE 4: Thank you for your comment. The selection of the databases was based on Institutional availability. The PubMed is integrated in the Medline Complete (all MeSH indexed manuscripts).

 

COMMENT 5: Line 110. Why have the keywords not been included in (3) selection by title and abstract?

RESPONSE 5: We are not entirely sure we understand your question. However, the selection process consisted of five steps: 1) Searching databases using the specific keywords; 2) Removing duplicates using Mendeley; 3) Selecting articles based on title and abstract, according to eligibility criteria; 4) Screening full texts to assess eligibility, based on eligibility criteria; 5) Conducting a manual search by reviewing the reference lists of the selected articles.

 

COMMENT 6: 2.4 Risk of Bias Assessment

Would it be possible to report on inter-rater reliability for quality assessment? (e.g. agreement using Cohen's kappa index)

RESPONSE 6: Thank you for your comment. Cohen's kappa index was determined regarding articles selection and quality assessment: “To assess the level of agreement between reviewers, Cohen’s kappa value was calculated, with values interpreted using the Landis & Koch (1977) scale [28]” – P3L129; “The level of agreement between reviewers was also calculated using the Cohen’s kappa statistics.” – P4L151. Its results were also presented: “The inter-rater agreement for risk of bias assessment was substantial, with a Cohen’s kappa value of 0.67.” – P5L182; “The inter-rater agreement for this phase was substantial, with a Cohen’s kappa value of 0.76.” – P4L157; “For full-text screening, Cohen’s kappa value was 0.82, indicating almost perfect agreement.” – P4L161.

 

COMMENT 7: Results

Lines 141-142. What does "handle search" mean? What does "Identification of studies via other methods" mean (Figure 2)?

RESPONSE 7: Thank you for your comment. "handle search"  was modified to “manual search” as suggested by another reviewer. The selection process consisted of five steps: 1) Searching databases using the specific keywords; 2) Removing duplicates using Mendeley; 3) Selecting articles based on title and abstract, according to eligibility criteria; 4) Screening full texts to assess eligibility, based on eligibility criteria; 5) Conducting a manual search by reviewing the reference lists of the selected articles. This way, “manual search” was the fifth step of the selection process.

 

COMMENT 8: Line 200. Why hasn't a meta-analysis been conducted? Could this be an answer?

Due to substantial heterogeneity in study designs, measurement techniques, and outcome variables, a meta-analysis was not feasible. Future research may aim to standardize outcome definitions and data collection methods to allow for quantitative synthesis.

RESPONSE 8: Thank you for your comment. We believe that you are right. The text was modified as suggested: P6L220 and P12L313.

 

COMMENT 9: Discussion

Lines 240-248 argue that the center of gravity has not been analyzed in any of the selected studies. In this regard, I suggest including other methodological contributions or relevant conclusions in studies related to other shooting sports (rifle, pistol, etc.) that have also analyzed postural sway.

RESPONSE 9: Thank you for your comment. After a careful search in the literature, it was also not possible to find literature that has analysed COG data in other shooting sports. Thus, the following text was added to the paragraph: “After a search in the literature, it was also not possible to find literature that has analysed COG data in other shooting sports such as rifle and air-pistol. Most of the studies that examined postural sway in other shooting sports analysed the COP [20–23].” – P11L264.

 

COMMENT 10: Lines 255-257. This joint stabilization involves (among other things) a type of isometric muscle contractions that can be recorded using EMG. Some studies have recorded EMG during isometric contractions in tasks requiring maximum movement precision. I suggest including some of these articles to reinforce the argument presented.

RESPONSE 10: Thank you for your comment. These articles were included: “To reinforce this idea, it is essential to discuss the neuromuscular mechanisms involved in controlling these joints under the perturbations caused by bow tension and the act of aiming. According to a previous study that examined muscular activation strategies among archers of varying expertise levels [41], elite archers showed reduced use of distal (forearm) muscles and greater reliance on proximal (shoulder) and axial (trapezius) muscles. In contrast, mid-level and novice archers relied more heavily on distal muscles. This differential muscle usage was identified as a key factor influencing the horizontal oscillation of the bowstring. Another study also addressed this issue [42], finding that elite archers exhibited greater activation of the extensor digitorum. This suggests that they avoid gripping the bow handle not only by relaxing the flexor muscles but also by actively contracting the extensor muscle groups. This muscular strategy helps prevent interference with the bow's forward movement, i.e., the acceleration caused by the bowstring's pushing force.” – P11L279.

 

COMMENT 11: In general, the three paragraphs prior to the last discussion (lines 249-277) present various arguments without any bibliographic references to support them, even if they use sports other than archery. I suggest further scientific evidence to support these arguments.

RESPONSE 11: Thank you for your comment. further scientific evidence was added: “To reinforce this idea, it is essential to discuss the neuromuscular mechanisms involved in controlling these joints under the perturbations caused by bow tension and the act of aiming. According to a previous study that examined muscular activation strategies among archers of varying expertise levels [41], elite archers showed reduced use of distal (forearm) muscles and greater reliance on proximal (shoulder) and axial (trapezius) muscles. In contrast, mid-level and novice archers relied more heavily on distal muscles. This differential muscle usage was identified as a key factor influencing the horizontal oscillation of the bowstring. Another study also addressed this issue [42], finding that elite archers exhibited greater activation of the extensor digitorum. This suggests that they avoid gripping the bow handle not only by relaxing the flexor muscles but also by actively contracting the extensor muscle groups. This muscular strategy helps prevent interference with the bow's forward movement, i.e., the acceleration caused by the bowstring's pushing force.” – P11L279. And: “After a search in the literature, it was also not possible to find literature that has analysed COG data in other shooting sports such as rifle and air-pistol. Most of the studies that examined postural sway in other shooting sports analysed the COP [20–23].” – P11L264.

 

COMMENT 12: Conclusion

The conclusion states (lines 287-289): "On the other hand, none of the selected studies analyzed COG data. Thus, future research should also focus on evaluating COG, as it is a key parameter in evaluating postural stability." I believe this conclusion is not sufficiently substantiated in the discussion to be considered a conclusion of the study.

RESPONSE 12: Thank you for your comment. After a careful search in the literature, it was also not possible to find literature that has analysed COG data in other shooting sports. Thus, this text was removed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present an original systematic review related to the relationship between shooting performance and postural stability in archery. The manuscript has a certain potential, but some comments need to be addressed by the authors. Overall, the manuscript is well presented. However, some comments should be addressed to the authors to improve their submitted.

Abstract. Lines 15 to 18. This section should be improved. Authors should stipulate that only instrumented biomechanical parameters related to body stability have been analyzed for this systematic review. Then, these parameters should be better introduced and described.

Keywords. Postural control should be added.

Introduction. Lines 31 to 45. The first paragraph of the introduction should be improved. Authors should add knowledges related to the importance of plantar proprioceptive sensitivity (mechanoreceptors of the foot) and postural control in static position (not only joint and muscle inputs). Lines 65 to 72. Biomechanical parameters should be better introduced and described. Authors should add this reference in this section: Raymakers JA, Samson MM, Verhaar HJ. The assessment of body sway and the choice of the stability parameter(s). Gait Posture. 2005;21(1):48-58. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2003.11.006. Indeed, authors should present the best postural parameters used to observe the postural stability (i.e., CoP speed) and the limits of others (i.e., CoP sway area).

Materials and methods. Table 2. First column should only describe the aim of the studies. A column should be inserted between Sample description and Results to describe the postural stability assessment. Performance should be described too when appropriated.

Results. Is there a relationship between postural stability and bow stability?

Discussion. Lines 241 to 244. The used of CoG assessment should be better discussed. Dynamic task versus shooting in static position? Neuromuscular strategies should be discussed (upright stance and shooting control). EMG studies in archery?

References. Authors should standardize the style of presentation of references (upper letters useless in the title, entire name of journals, etc…) related to instruction to authors:

1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal NameYear, Volume, page range.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer.

Thank you for your valuable revisions and insightful suggestions. We sincerely believe they will greatly enhance the quality of our manuscript.

 

COMMENT 1: The authors present an original systematic review related to the relationship between shooting performance and postural stability in archery. The manuscript has a certain potential, but some comments need to be addressed by the authors. Overall, the manuscript is well presented. However, some comments should be addressed to the authors to improve their submitted.

RESPONSE 1: Thank you for your comment.

 

COMMENT 2: Abstract. Lines 15 to 18. This section should be improved. Authors should stipulate that only instrumented biomechanical parameters related to body stability have been analyzed for this systematic review. Then, these parameters should be better introduced and described.

RESPONSE 2: Thank you for your comment. The text was revised: “Sixteen articles were selected, and the following biomechanical parameters related to body stability were analyzed: center of pressure displacement, velocity, and ellipse area; bow sway; sway of markers placed on head, sternum, and pelvis.” – P1L15.

 

COMMENT 3: Keywords. Postural control should be added.

RESPONSE 3: Thank you for your comment. The keyword has been added. P1L27.

 

COMMENT 4: Lines 31 to 45. The first paragraph of the introduction should be improved. Authors should add knowledges related to the importance of plantar proprioceptive sensitivity (mechanoreceptors of the foot) and postural control in static position (not only joint and muscle inputs). 

RESPONSE 4: Thank you for your comment. The first paragraph was improved: “Moreover, the foot functions as an integrated unit that plays a key role in postural control and regulation at the spinal cord level [4]. As the body's direct interface with the ground during quiet standing, it provides essential plantar cutaneous information that contributes significantly to maintaining posture [4].” – P1L38.

 

COMMENT 5: Lines 65 to 72. Biomechanical parameters should be better introduced and described. Authors should add this reference in this section: Raymakers JA, Samson MM, Verhaar HJ. The assessment of body sway and the choice of the stability parameter(s). Gait Posture. 2005;21(1):48-58. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2003.11.006. Indeed, authors should present the best postural parameters used to observe the postural stability (i.e., CoP speed) and the limits of others (i.e., CoP sway area).

RESPONSE 5: Thank you for your comment. The paragraph was improved: “Regarding COP data, COP velocity seems to be the most informative parameter concerning postural stability [19].” – P2L71

 

COMMENT 6: Table 2. First column should only describe the aim of the studies. A column should be inserted between Sample description and Results to describe the postural stability assessment. Performance should be described too when appropriated.

RESPONSE 6: Thank you for your comment. Table 2 was revised accordingly.

 

COMMENT 7: Results. Is there a relationship between postural stability and bow stability?

RESPONSE 7: Thank you for your comment. The data obtained from the selected studies do not allow for an answer to this question.

 

COMMENT 8: Discussion.

Lines 241 to 244. The used of CoG assessment should be better discussed.

RESPONSE 8: Thank you for your comment. After a careful search in the literature, it was also not possible to find literature that has analysed COG data in other shooting sports. Thus, the following text was added to the paragraph: “After a search in the literature, it was also not possible to find literature that has analysed COG data in other shooting sports such as rifle and air-pistol. Most of the studies that examined postural sway in other shooting sports analysed the COP [20–23].” – P11L264.

 

 

COMMENT 9: Dynamic task versus shooting in static position? Neuromuscular strategies should be discussed (upright stance and shooting control). EMG studies in archery?

RESPONSE 9: Thank you for your comment. The following text was added: “To reinforce this idea, it is essential to discuss the neuromuscular mechanisms involved in controlling these joints under the perturbations caused by bow tension and the act of aiming. According to a previous study that examined muscular activation strategies among archers of varying expertise levels [41], elite archers showed reduced use of distal (forearm) muscles and greater reliance on proximal (shoulder) and axial (trapezius) muscles. In contrast, mid-level and novice archers relied more heavily on distal muscles. This differential muscle usage was identified as a key factor influencing the horizontal oscillation of the bowstring. Another study also addressed this issue [42], finding that elite archers exhibited greater activation of the extensor digitorum. This suggests that they avoid gripping the bow handle not only by relaxing the flexor muscles but also by actively contracting the extensor muscle groups. This muscular strategy helps prevent interference with the bow's forward movement, i.e., the acceleration caused by the bowstring's pushing force.” – P11L279.

 

COMMENT 10: References. Authors should standardize the style of presentation of references (upper letters useless in the title, entire name of journals, etc…) related to instruction to authors:

1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal NameYear, Volume, page range.

RESPONSE 10: Thank you for your comment. The references were revised accordingly.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the resubmitted manuscript, the author(s) did an exceptional work and addressed adequately all topics mentioned in the initial round of reviewing. No further comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your work.