Handbike Riding in the Brescia Urban Loose Space: Topographical Evaluation and Metabolic Demand Estimation of Four Suitable Tracks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I am glad that I have the opportunity to review this work because I believe that works dealing with scientific research that can be used for practical purposes are of great importance. In this sense, the work has the potential for a wider readership because it offers practical solutions to problems that are increasingly prevalent throughout the world, namely physical inactivity, but also the negative consequences of traffic in cities. The paper is well-laid out methodologically. The abstract is written according to the requirements of the journal and scientific article, clearly, and concisely with appropriate results and conclusions. In the introductory part, the authors correctly explain the terms related to the research problem and support everything with appropriate and adequate references. The study design is good. The figures used explained the experimental procedure in an easy and comprehensible way, whereby the Study examined four tracks suitable for HB, public and free to use, located in the municipalities of Brescia (Figure 1), while Figure 2 explained the position of the subjects on the hand bike and position of instruments. The obtained results were analyzed in a correct way using statistical parameters that correspond to the research problem. In doing so, they are accompanied by figures that facilitate only the interpretation of the results. All parts of the discussion chapter were analyzed by the obtained results and previous research. Based on this part of the work and the obtained results, the authors made specific conclusions that were correctly interpreted. They recognized the limitations of this kind of research, which gives this work additional value. A large number of adequate references were used and no inappropriate self-citations of authors were observed. By all previous observations, I believe that the paper should be accepted for publication in its entirety.

.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their comment. We are glad that our work has been appreciated.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript called "Handbike riding in the Brescia urban loose space: topographical evaluation and metabolic demand estimation of four suitable tracks"  is an original piece highly recommended for publication. Only requires final English proof reading and no modifications.

Author Response

Thanks for the comment

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to thank the authors for their submission. This is an interesting research question that warrants exploration. However, there is one major issue and several smaller issues within this manuscript.

 

First, the sample size for this investigation is extremely small and unbalanced across the tracks. This poses a multitude of issues in terms of any meaningful findings from the data collected. The major problem that I have is that not all participants completed each track to then have any sort of true comparison across tracks. Also when adding up the number of participants from the subjects section (line 105 - 108) only adds up to 7. So with any of those being repeat participants across tracks there is an issue. Also with tracks 1 and 4, if there is one 1 participant then there should not be SD values with the demographic data.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the article Handbike riding in the Brescia urban loose space: topographical evaluation and metabolic demand estimation of four suitable tracks, I consider it to be original in the field that concerns us. In this field the method used is suitable to achieve the objectives proposed by the authors. Moreover, the way it is carried out is correct and the conclusions are clear and concise. In addition, the theoretical framework in which it is framed is appropriate and updated to the article, objectives and hypotheses proposed. For these reasons I consider that the construction and information ultimately provided in the conclusions section as a consequence of the research is appropriate.

Author Response

We are glad that the reviewer considers our study appropriate. Thank you for the favorable opinion.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing our concerns and providing clarity.