Study Concerning the Physical Fitness of Romanian Students and Its Effects on Their Health-Related Quality of Life
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have improved the manuscript in ways suggested. no further feedback at this time.
Author Response
Thank you.
Reviewer 2 Report
Section 2.1. Mention the notion of training, in the university curriculum there are only practical lessons. Training refers to performance sports. It's a big mess.
Also, according to the purpose of the research, in addition to the mentioned values, you should make a concrete identification of the programs, efficiency, weight, etc.
Section 2.3 which is the number of subjects per group. How the selection was made, inclusion and exclusion criteria.
I recommend you to mention the implementation period, the distribution of the time fund.
Even if you have made an improvement to your article, it does not bring any news regarding the efficiency of the programs and the weight of application. The research also has gaps in understanding.
I consider that this article is not of the level of this journal.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 2
Section 2.1. Mention the notion of training, in the university curriculum there are only practical lessons. Training refers to performance sports. It's a big mess.
We made the suggested change.
Also, according to the purpose of the research, in addition to the mentioned values, you should make a concrete identification of the programs, efficiency, weight, etc.
We added the information concerning the efficiency of the applied programs and mentioned for which physical fitness components was effective.
Section 2.3 which is the number of subjects per group. How the selection was made, inclusion and exclusion criteria.
We added the number of subjects per group and the selection criteria.
I recommend you to mention the implementation period, the distribution of the time fund.
We added the requested data.
Even if you have made an improvement to your article, it does not bring any news regarding the efficiency of the programs and the weight of application. The research also has gaps in understanding.
For each program used in our research we added new information and the weight of application.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
no comments
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The abstract should describe the experimental step that was used in greater detail.
It would help to give the before/after values rather than p values for t-tests in the abstract.
Clarity of writing could be improved; some unusual phrases are used to describe the study and methods.
Use 1970s instead of 70s.
Line 35-36 was unclear what was being analyzed or how QoL was defined,
Line 45- what type of analysis was done to reach the dimensions? Is this what the authors have conducted for this study or are they describing some prior research?
Line 82 – “young people” phrase is used? Was this about the authors or the sample in the study?
Line 86 – would help to give age ranges here.
Lines 128-150 – seems like too much detail provided here for the prior study; was uncertain if authors were starting to describe the current study findings. It seems like that may be the case from the abstract. Would suggest placing in Methods.
Specific aims/hypotheses/objectives would be helpful before the methods. Hypothesis is difficult to follow about what exactly was being tested.
Authors could review/provide information on the benefits of interventions to improve physical fitness. In the introduction to support the introduction of the hypothesis.
Study measures and intervention should be described in more detail. It was unclear what outcomes were used and how the activities were measured or analyzed.
Lines 184-188; not sure if you need to give this detail for test.
Lines 190-196-should be in a Procedures section of Methods
Spelling of “height” table 2.
Authors compare before/after findings between the two groups. Would help to see use of more advanced analytics to make a comparison between these groups taking control/intervention and time into account (along with any personal characteristics of participants).
Much of the discussion seems to be summarizing sections that should fit in the Results.
Limitations and future research considerations should be provided.
Reviewer 2 Report
The idea of your study is interesting, but I have to make the following recommendations:
In the abstract:
- mention that Based on these initial results, we began a new experimental step which switched the focus to certain PA that would influence all of the PF components, it is not clear what change you have made, I recommend clarification.
- I also recommend that you mention in the abstract what the purpose of the study is.
- it is not clear what the samples are, I recommend clarification
- the conclusion is not focused on results, it is too generalized, I recommend correction
Lines 33-34 recommend mentioning the bibliographic source.
Lines 128-149 recommend moving to the methods or results section.
I also recommend that you clearly mention the novelty of this study in the introduction.
The purpose of the study is not clearly mentioned, I recommend correction.
In the introduction you mention general aspects of practicing physical activities, without focusing on young students, I recommend introducing more concrete aspects.
Mention H1, you have more, if not, I recommend correction.
The purpose of the study I recommend to be rewritten, it is a bit unclear, refer to both samples.
In the participant section you mention that the study was conducted over 3 semesters, but the typology of university semesters is different, I recommend you to mention how many hours per week were worked. I recommend you to mention how the subjects were selected.
In the material and methods section, it is not mentioned which tests you applied, those mentioned in the Introduction.
Also in table 1, mentioned 24 subjects in both the experiment group and the control group, I consider that the number of subjects is too small to be relevant.
The relevance of the aspects of scoliosis and tachycardia is not found. How these results were obtained.
You did not mention when the tests and conditions were performed.
Lines 202-203, these issues I recommend to be moved to the discussion section.
I consider that this article is not of the level of this journal, due to the small number of subjects and the inconsistency of the applied methodology. Also the statistics are simple.
