Shot Put: Which Role for Kinematic Analysis?
, Franco Merni 1, Gabriele Semprini 1, Giacomo Drusiani 2, Matteo Cortesi 2 and Sandro Bartolomei 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Starting with the title, provide it with more impact. "Shot put: which role for kinematic analysis?"
Abstract:
In the aim as few acronyms as possible, better define the nature of the groups in the methods section. Before the goal, provide a background sentence.
In the aim as few acronyms as possible, better define the nature of the groups in the methods section. Before the goal, provide a background sentence.
Provide a design. Explain the acronym SIMI or keep vague with the type of software
19-20 truncated statement, however poorly formulated
As a conclusion referring to the major findings, I do not agree with the concept of "strength", was it really evaluated? The kinematic study, on the other hand, is a focus on the "different interpretation of the technique" or on the conception of the athletic gesture.
- Fascinating manuscript. critical issues must be solved:
Intro
25 Kinematic analyses. Anyway, I would start the manuscript with a description of the sport.
27-29 The term studies implies the use of multiple bibliographic references
39-45 Discussion section
48-49 discussion section
53-72 Remove. Remove table 1.
73-75 References missing.
The rationale on studies with small sample sizes is weak
76 Few? Only [21]? Among other things, it is a study on 12 pros, reformulating the rationale on the need to evaluate the evidence among different seniority in sport
Methods
In the participants describe eligibility with the inclusion and exclusion criteria, never report results in the methods section
94 a figure is needed
102 Is it used frequently in the literature? Is there any reference?
130 Parametric data? I'm not convinced..
In light of the statistical gap, I think I should first recommend a major revision and only then reassess the results and discussion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
- many parameters and data are reported as mean and st_dev: is it a meaningful choice? Are they all normally distributed?
- the sample size of the dataset is indeed very small: what about the statistical significance?
- for instance, a regression analysis as the one reported in Fig.1 has a questionable significance given the number of interpolating data
- overall, the paper itself is little more than a comparison between two small datasets: thus, there is no methodological innovation involved, while all the novelty relies on the data, and the conclusions that can be drawn from them. Thus, given the small sample size, I would be more careful in evaluating the differences between the values of the two groups. Further, I would strongly suggest to find out some additional original/publicly available data to use as validation to better support the authors' claims.
Minors:
- some misprints occur throughout the manuscript
- some phrases are written in non-standard English, I would recommend having the manuscript proofread by a Native English speaker
- l.125 - explicitly specify N,m,a
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I can suggest suitability for publication, I would reduce the volume of the conclusions, without paraphrasing the objectives..
Author Response
applsci-1480565: Shot put: which role for kinematic analysis?
Reviewer 1
I can suggest suitability for publication, I would reduce the volume of the conclusions, without paraphrasing the objectives.
A: Based on the reviewer’s suggestions, the conclusions were revised and reduced.
Reviewer 2
Minor: Ref. 2 at line 416 in the new version of the manuscript is incomplete
A: The reference was completed.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
All the raised issues have been reasonably discussed and dealt with.
Minor: Ref. 2 at line 416 in the new version of the manuscript is incomplete.
Author Response
applsci-1480565: Shot put: which role for kinematic analysis?
Reviewer 1
I can suggest suitability for publication, I would reduce the volume of the conclusions, without paraphrasing the objectives.
A: Based on the reviewer’s suggestions, the conclusions were revised and reduced.
Reviewer 2
Minor: Ref. 2 at line 416 in the new version of the manuscript is incomplete
A: The reference was completed.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
