Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I studied your work and I find it very interesting for the scientific field.

Well designed. 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable time and kind feedback

Reviewer 2 Report

Good paper on a very interesting topic. Well explained and with good conclusions, all of them previously known, but highlighting the importance of the subject. 

For my part, it would be important to add in the conclusions section the role of HIIT, as the author has explained previously. Once you mention HIIT in the conclusions, it could be accepted. 

Author Response

-Thank you for your valuable time and kind feedback. The conclusion has been revised as recommended. Thanks again.

Reviewer 3 Report

Type of the Paper (Entry): Add in the template, not indicated.

Abstract

Correct.

Keywords

Do not include words that appear in the title.

Introduction

As a scientist paper, each paragraph should have several references that justify the presentation of ideas, concepts or facts. There are paragraphs without any citations.

Table 1. Only the title should be included, not the explanation, abbreviations and so on. It is not your place. You must revise all tables according to the journal's guidelines.

The structure of the article is not determined by the journal.

Conclusions

Scarce. There is no deep reflection that connects and justifies the objective of the research.

Prospects

I would include it, it is the continuation of the research.

References

Not adapted to the journal model.

Author Response

Thanks for taking the time to look at this paper, and providing some feedback. Please see point by point responses below.

-Type of the Paper (Entry): Add in the template, not indicated. Abstract. Correct. Keywords: Do not include words that appear in the title.

Response: Thanks, adjusted as recommended.

-Introduction: As a scientist paper, each paragraph should have several references that justify the presentation of ideas, concepts or facts. There are paragraphs without any citations.

Response: Your opinion is appreciated. The paper used a sufficient number of references (55 references) and were well used fairly throughout all parts of the manuscript. I am happy to address any specific comment you may have. Scientists are allowed to have an opinion based on the evidence they present.

-Table 1. Only the title should be included, not the explanation, abbreviations and so on. It is not your place. You must revise all tables according to the journal's guidelines. The structure of the article is not determined by the journal.

Response: Thanks. The tables titles and legends have been revised and amended as recommended.

-Conclusions: Scarce. There is no deep reflection that connects and justifies the objective of the research. Prospects: I would include it, it is the continuation of the research. References: Not adapted to the journal model.

Response: Thanks for this comment. Conclusion has been revised and rewritten more specifically to reflect the contents of the paper as recommended.

-Thanks for your valuable time and helpful feedback. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The modifications made in relation to the format of the tables and the rest of the paper are appropriate on my part, as they reflect the importance of HIIT in the population referred to in the paper.
The number of self-references is really quite high, it is striking. It should reduce these citations to less than 15%, because it seems to be too much self-reference and it does not seem appropriate...
As for the content, you have corrected the aspects I pointed out in the first review, and the article (after the decision on the references) meets my approval.

Author Response

The modifications made in relation to the format of the tables and the rest of the paper are appropriate on my part, as they reflect the importance of HIIT in the population referred to in the paper.
The number of self-references is really quite high, it is striking. It should reduce these citations to less than 15%, because it seems to be too much self-reference and it does not seem appropriate...
As for the content, you have corrected the aspects I pointed out in the first review, and the article (after the decision on the references) meets my approval.

 

Response:

Thanks for your comments. As recommended, several self-references have now been removed or replaced (e.g. Ref 7, 42, 46/47 and 55), and only the essential ones were kept. Relevant related text has been adjusted accordingly. I hope that is sufficient.

Many thanks again for your time and valuable feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

References

Not adapted to the journal model. 

For the rest ok. 

Regards.

Author Response

References, Not adapted to the journal model. For the rest ok. Regards.

Response: Thanks again for your time and feedback. The editorial office will do the layout of references later.