Thermal Response in Two Models of Socks with Different 3-D Weave Separations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper needs to be improved in following manners, this is a nice study however, following

questions are necessary to be answered before further processing

a. This would be beneficial if authors could provide more details at the end of introduction

specifically stating the objective of the paper, although this is explained but needs a little more

clarity.

b. Authors need to update the survey of literature for more recent papers specifically published in

the recent years 2022 etc.

The authors should elaborate on their new findings that are worthy of consideration for publication in a journal, below some proposed work:

https://doi.org/10.2166/wrd.2019.057

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enganabound.2022.06.027

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enganabound.2022.06.006

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.07.140

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2022.102214

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jics.2022.100564

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-09329-3

https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2022.2057277

https://doi.org/10.1080/17455030.2022.2032474

https://doi.org/10.1177/09544062211057039

c. Language of the paper needs professional touch ups as there are typos and errors in some parts

of paper and they need to be reduced.

d. In the conclusion section, authors need to focus on the outcomes of their study with salient

findings only, keep them brief, as more explanation is already added in the results and

discussion section.

e. Results and discussion section is well explained, please try to look at figures in this section they might need more explanation if needed.

f. Altogether after these improvements are properly made, paper would be in a decent shape and

can be considered for publication if revised well.

g. Please give a bird eye view picture of your finding in abstract.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind and very helpful comments. I have looked through the manuscript following your recommendations and suggestions. I will show to you the changes that we have made due to your review. The changes in the text made due to your revision are underlined in yellow

Reviewer 1 Comments to Author: 

Paper needs to be improved in following manners, this is a nice study however, following questions are necessary to be answered before further processing

•     Response: Thank you for your comments.

This would be beneficial if authors could provide more details at the end of introduction specifically stating the objective of the paper, although this is explained but needs a little more clarity.

•             Response: The change has been made in the text.

Authors need to update the survey of literature for more recent papers specifically published in the recent years 2022 etc.

• Response: A new 2022 reference has been added, number 13. We appreciate your list of possible references, however we found one that fits more with our paper issue.

Language of the paper needs professional touch ups as there are typos and errors in some parts of paper and they need to be reduced.

• Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have send the paper to a native English speaker and he had corrected the mistakes.

In the conclusion section, authors need to focus on the outcomes of their study with salient findings only, keep them brief, as more explanation is already added in the results and discussion section.

• Response: The conclusion section has been rebuilt following your suggestions

Results and discussion section is well explained, please try to look at figures in this section they might need more explanation if needed.

• Response: The figures has been updated with more info in each one.

Altogether after these improvements are properly made, paper would be in a decent shape and can be considered for publication if revised well.

• Response: Thank you for your effort

Please give a bird eye view picture of your finding in abstract.

• Response: The change proposed has been added to the results section of the abstract.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is fascinating research, and I applaud the author's attempts to use cutting-edge technology to assess the thermoregulatory effect of socks using thermography. The manuscript is well-written and worth reading. If the novelty is not considered, i believe this manuscript could be accepted for publication after addressing the following comments.

1. In Table 1, correct the person's minimum height.

2. Present the schematic geometrical configuration of sock models in Fig. 1. 

3. In Fig. 3, mark the ROI numbers.

4. In Line 146, what does the sentence, "Is there anything you want to tell us about the socks that we haven't asked you?" mean? Clarify.

5. Why was the research limited to a running distance of 10 km only? Why was data for less than 10 kilometers not collected? Wouldn't it be interesting to observe the temperature trend with respect to increasing distance? I recommend authors to keep track of the temperature data with respect to increasing distance. For example, data may be collected at the incremental distance of 2 km and observed the temperature trend. 

6. When Table 3 is compared to Table 2, it can be observed that the temperature in the region 'Hallux' remained the same and the temperature in the region '5th MTH' declined while the temperature in the other locations increased. Justify.

7. Support your 'Spearman Correlation' results with the developed theory.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind and very helpful comments. I have looked through the manuscript following your recommendations and suggestions. I will show to you the changes that we have made due to your review. The changes in the text made due to your revision are underlined in green

Reviewer 2 Comments to Author: 

This is fascinating research, and I applaud the author's attempts to use cutting-edge technology to assess the thermoregulatory effect of socks using thermography. The manuscript is well-written and worth reading. If the novelty is not considered, i believe this manuscript could be accepted for publication after addressing the following comments.

1. In Table 1, correct the person's minimum height.

• Response: The minimum height is a mistake, we have correct it.

2. Present the schematic geometrical configuration of sock models in Fig. 1. 

• Response: We have added more explanation in the figure legend and also a geometrical schema in the picture

3. In Fig. 3, mark the ROI numbers.

• Response: the proposed change has been made in the figure

4. In Line 146, what does the sentence, "Is there anything you want to tell us about the socks that we haven't asked you?" mean? Clarify.

• Response: we ask this question in order to know a runner´s sensations not asked in the other likert questions. But due of not responded we have removed the question in the text

5. Why was the research limited to a running distance of 10 km only? Why was data for less than 10 kilometers not collected? Wouldn't it be interesting to observe the temperature trend with respect to increasing distance? I recommend authors to keep track of the temperature data with respect to increasing distance. For example, data may be collected at the incremental distance of 2 km and observed the temperature trend.

• Response: Yes, this is an interesting point of view and this is a limitation of the study. So, we have added this issue to the limitations of the study section

6. When Table 3 is compared to Table 2, it can be observed that the temperature in the region 'Hallux' remained the same and the temperature in the region '5th MTH' declined while the temperature in the other locations increased. Justify.

• Response: This tables shows that temperature in hallux increased in the same way (5.3ºC) in both models. In the 5^th metatarsal head the temperature increased too, 4.4ºC in the AWC 1 and 4.2ºC in the AWC 2., so was not a decrease but a lesser increase (only 0.2ºC, but not significant)

7. Support your 'Spearman Correlation' results with the developed theory.

• Response: We have added a sentence in the discussion section.

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments

The purpose of the research described in the article was to 'evaluate the temperatures reflected on the sole of the foot after 10-km run, using two models of sock with the same three-dimensional plantar design, but a different composition of the separation of the weaves'. It would probably be better to add "while wearing" (or similar) instead of "using." The article is well written and meets the requirements for scientific papers. The only problem is that, in light of the results obtained, the issue under consideration is of negligible cognitive as well as practical importance. However, it was possible to indicate one significant, albeit small, difference in temperature between the feet for the area of the first metatarsal head, but it was not related to the perceived sensations of the subjects. Negative results are still results. The AWC1 sock for which this difference was noted was shorter than AWC 2.1 (Figure 2), which may have affected heat transfer. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the discussion section.

However, it should be noted that both the introduction and the discussion are well written and I read them with interest.

Specific comments

p.1.line.25 - please close the parenthesis,

Table 1. Definitely separate the characteristics of the male and female groups,

2.1 Measurement protocol - the reader does not find out what happened before the first temperature measurement, whether there was a warm-up,

Figure 2. Describe which sock is which,

Figure 3. In the text above the Figure, numbers are given to describe each region. The numbers are not in the figure.

p.5. line 153 I would replace "dependence" with "relationship" (it makes a difference),

p.5. line 154. I would write α=0.05 rather than p<0.05; level means one value, not range,

Table 2. Some of the temperature values from lines 159-164 are repeated in the table; just present them once; ‘26.6640’ is "too accurate". In this case (due to the accuracy of the measurement), two decimal places are enough (the same applies to the other tables)

p.8. line 204. I would write "temperature" instead of "T values" (because it can be confusing).

the 9th item of references - you can clarify bibliographic data.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind and very helpful comments. I have looked through the manuscript following your recommendations and suggestions. I will show to you the changes that we have made due to your review. The changes in the text made due to your revision are underlined in blue

Reviewer 3 Comments to Author: 

General comments

The purpose of the research described in the article was to 'evaluate the temperatures reflected on the sole of the foot after 10-km run, using two models of sock with the same three-dimensional plantar design, but a different composition of the separation of the weaves'. It would probably be better to add "while wearing" (or similar) instead of "using." The article is well written and meets the requirements for scientific papers. The only problem is that, in light of the results obtained, the issue under consideration is of negligible cognitive as well as practical importance. However, it was possible to indicate one significant, albeit small, difference in temperature between the feet for the area of the first metatarsal head, but it was not related to the perceived sensations of the subjects. Negative results are still results. The AWC1 sock for which this difference was noted was shorter than AWC 2.1 (Figure 2), which may have affected heat transfer. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the discussion section.

However, it should be noted that both the introduction and the discussion are well written and I read them with interest.

Response: Thank you for your comments, the word “using” has been changed to “while wearing” and the issue of the short AWC 1 was added in the limitations of the study section.

Specific comments

1. 1.line.25 - please close the parenthesis,

• Response: The change has been made in the text.

2. Table 1. Definitely separate the characteristics of the male and female groups,

• Response: We have updated the table adding the gender data.

3. 2.1 Measurement protocol - the reader does not find out what happened before the first temperature measurement, whether there was a warm-up,

• Response: This issue has been added in the text.

4. Figure 2. Describe which sock is which,

• Response: We have added more explanation in the figure

5. Figure 3. In the text above the Figure, numbers are given to describe each region. The numbers are not in the figure.

• Response: The proposed change has been made in the figure.

6.  Line 153 I would replace "dependence" with "relationship" (it makes a difference),

• Response: It´s has been replaced the word in the text.

7.  Line 154. I would write α=0.05 rather than p<0.05; level means one value, not range,

• Response:  α=0.05 has been written as the level of significance how and not a range

8. Table 2. Some of the temperature values from lines 159-164 are repeated in the table; just present them once; ‘26.6640’ is "too accurate". In this case (due to the accuracy of the measurement), two decimal places are enough (the same applies to the other tables)

• Response:  We have reduced the proposed values to 2 decimal places

9.  Line 204. I would write "temperature" instead of "T values" (because it can be confusing).

• Response:  The proposed change has been rebuilt following your suggestions

10.  the 9th item of references - you can clarify bibliographic data.

• Response:  The reference has been updated

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper can be now accepted.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments

Reviewer 2 Report

I have examined the revised manuscript entitled, “Thermal Response in Two Models of Socks with Different 3-D Weave Separations" by Raquel Sánchez Rodríguez et al.. I am satisfied with the revisions made and thus approve it for publication in its current form. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments