Reliability, Validity and Sensitivity of Newly Developed Tennis-Specific Reactive Agility Tests

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The structure presented for review is consistent with this type of work. The great advantage is the research methodology and the number of tests, which guarantees reliability and validity, as well as the selection of statistical calculation methods to verify the research hypothesis. The authors comments about the need for further research taking into account  gender, the specificity of the discipline.

At work, I miss information and research on the tennis agility test used so far, as well as the results proving the advantage of the new tests over those previously used  to measure the agility of tennis players. The text introduced to the introductory part will enrich the study and make the proposed new agility tests more credible.

Author Response

Dear Editor:

We are pleased to resubmit for publication the revised version of Manuscript entitled "RELIABILITY, VALIDITY AND SENSITIVITY OF NEWLY DEVELOPED TENNIS-SPECIFIC REACTIVE AGILITY TESTS". We appreciate the constructive criticisms of the Editor and the reviewers. We have addressed each of their concerns as outlined below.

Responses to the comments from Reviewer 1:

General comments

The structure presented for review is consistent with this type of work. The great advantage is the research methodology and the number of tests, which guarantees reliability and validity, as well as the selection of statistical calculation methods to verify the research hypothesis. The authors comments about the need for further research taking into account  gender, the specificity of the discipline.

At work, I miss information and research on the tennis agility test used so far, as well as the results proving the advantage of the new tests over those previously used  to measure the agility of tennis players. The text introduced to the introductory part will enrich the study and make the proposed new agility tests more credible.

Thank you this comment. We really appreciate your constructive criticisms. Thank you for pointing this out. We definitely agree with your comment. These information have been added within the Introduction section.

We thank the editor and the reviewers again for their helpful comments, which we feel have improved our manuscript. We hope that with these modifications, our paper can now be accepted for publication.

Sincerely,

Dario Novak

Reviewer 2 Report

RELIABILITY, VALIDITY AND SENSITIVITY OF NEWLY DEVELOPED TENNIS-SPECIFIC REACTIVE AGILITY TESTS

General comments to the authors

Overall, this is a nice study. The authors are commended on their efforts thus far. The study is well designed and well-written, with a great introduction proposing the usefulness of the topic and a clear outline of the research question. However, the clarity of the results needs to be improved to allow this manuscript to be ready for publication.

Abstract

Line 9: The authors should be extracting given that

Line 16: The authors should be extract Based on the obtained results,

Line 22: The authors should be extracting According to the obtained results,

Line 24: The authors should be extracting Having that in mind,

The authors might add agility or speed or motor skills as a keyword

Introduction section

Line 38: These terms should be replaced (CODS-Change of direction speed). Instead of this, (Change of direction speed-CODS) should be used in the paper.

Line 41: the same (RAG-reactive agility)

Methods section

Is there any protocol code for ethical approval? If it has, it should be added.

The writing style of the 2.2. Variables, 2.3Study design and 2.4. Data analysis methods should be change according to guideline of the journal.

Results section

This section is well designed and well-written.

Discussion section

Overall the discussion is well-written and incorporates relevant literature. However, this section should be written longer.  

Author Response

Dear Editor:

We are pleased to resubmit for publication the revised version of Manuscript entitled "RELIABILITY, VALIDITY AND SENSITIVITY OF NEWLY DEVELOPED TENNIS-SPECIFIC REACTIVE AGILITY TESTS". We appreciate the constructive criticisms of the Editor and the reviewers. We have addressed each of their concerns as outlined below.

Responses to the comments from Reviewer 2:

General comments

Overall, this is a nice study. The authors are commended on their efforts thus far. The study is well designed and well-written, with a great introduction proposing the usefulness of the topic and a clear outline of the research question. However, the clarity of the results needs to be improved to allow this manuscript to be ready for publication.

Thank you these comments. We really appreciate your constructive criticisms.

Abstract

Line 9: The authors should be extracting given that

Done.

Line 16: The authors should be extract Based on the obtained results,

Done.

Line 22: The authors should be extracting According to the obtained results,

Done.

Line 24: The authors should be extracting Having that in mind,

Done.

The authors might add agility or speed or motor skills as a keyword

Done.

Introduction section

Line 38: These terms should be replaced (CODS-Change of direction speed). Instead of this, (Change of direction speed-CODS) should be used in the paper.

Done.

Line 41: the same (RAG-reactive agility)

Done.

Methods section

Is there any protocol code for ethical approval? If it has, it should be added.

Yes, there is a protocol code for ethical approval, and it has been added within the Methods section. Thank you for this comment!

The writing style of the 2.2. Variables, 2.3. Study design and 2.4. Data analysis methods should be change according to guideline of the journal.

Done.

 Results section

This section is well designed and well-written.

Thank you this comment. We really appreciate your constructive criticisms.

Discussion section

Overall, the discussion is well-written and incorporates relevant literature. However, this section should be written longer.  

Done.

We thank the editor and the reviewers again for their helpful comments, which we feel have improved our manuscript. We hope that with these modifications, our paper can now be accepted for publication.

Sincerely,

Dario Novak