A Novel Study on the Functional Capacity of Athletes and Its Influence on Their Fear of Pain and Injuries
, Mauricio Alberto Ortega Ruiz 2, Carlos Alberto González Gutiérrez 3,*, Natalia Rojas Espinosa 2 and David Guadarrama Gutiérrez 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTo me, the topic seems very interesting and the title is well defined and matches the content, but I read and saw some technical issues. 1. I want you to highlight the Hypothesis of scientific research, what is it? 2. Then confirm or deny it in the conclusions! shouldn't you have divided them into 2 groups men and women? age? You put them all in the same jar... 3. There are few bibliographic sources, to strengthen the scientific reasoning requires a minimum of 50 on this subject, being a lot of research. I recommend introducing more aspects in the Conclusions. I don't see any percentage against their fear of injuries.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
To me, the topic seems very interesting and the title is well defined and matches the content, but I read and saw some technical issues. 1. I want you to highlight the Hypothesis of scientific research, what is it? 2. Then confirm or deny it in the conclusions! shouldn't you have divided them into 2 groups men and women? age? You put them all in the same jar... 3. There are few bibliographic sources, to strengthen the scientific reasoning requires a minimum of 50 on this subject, being a lot of research. I recommend introducing more aspects in the Conclusions. I don't see any percentage against their fear of injuries.
Author Response
Respondiendo a preguntas y sugerencias, se le envían los cambios.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the introduction section, more information should be added about the psychological variables that could be related to kinesiophobia, such as emotional exhaustion, fear, anxiety, self-esteem, mood, and include others such as depression, trait anger or self-talk, considering these variables relevant to the field of study.
On the other hand, to know the theoretical deficiencies compared to other publications, the authors are recommended to review and introduce the contributions of other works (as already pointed out in the initial report), since it is a weakness of the manuscript to remain this quite limited information in the Introduction section and lacks the Discussion section, in which the results of the study are explained and integrated with previous and current works.
Regarding the methodology, it is recommended to organize it following the structure: 1. Participants (indicating the number and percentages of the variables gender, types of sports, type of injuries and number, mean and standard deviation of age, highlighting those variables most relevant); 2. Variables and instruments (describe the measurement instruments and their psychometric characteristics such as Cronbach's Alpha, as well as the variables that will be analyzed); 3. Design and procedure (expand it).
The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, addressing the main questions. However, the conclusions have to be presented after the Discussion section, which is not included in the manuscript and is indicated in the initial report.
The references are incomplete because they only cover works on injuries and the fatigue variable, but not on psychological variables or health habits.
The format of the tables would have to be modified and the contribution of the content they present reviewed. Tables could be included with descriptive data of the variables, as well as the characteristics of the participants.
It is relevant to include a section with limitations, practical applications and future directions .
Author Response
Responding to questions and suggestions, the changes are sent to you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt's challenging to follow the text due to the scientific writing style employed. Excessive use of prepositions and lengthy sentences disrupt the flow of the text. The introduction loops back and forth on the topics without anchoring them, hindering the development of reasoning on the desired investigative theme. The innovation was not clearly presented, and the objectives have already been extensively studied in previous research. Only on PubMed, there are 128 narrative and systematic reviews discussing kinesiophobia with similar arguments. The impression given is that the authors have a large database but failed to focus on an innovative question, resulting in null scientific advancements with this report.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSee my previous comments.
Author Response
Respondiendo a preguntas y sugerencias, se le envían los cambios.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article presents a new study on the functional ability of athletes and their impact on pain and injury fear. It explores various aspects of motor phobia and predicts factors through neural network modeling, promoting patient recovery. I have carefully reviewed your research work and provided the following review comments, hoping to help improve your paper:
1.The abstract of the article emphasizes the background knowledge and related reasons of motor phobia. However, the explanation of the method you proposed is too brief, and emphasis should be placed on the method you are using - neural networks.
2. The article lacks proof of mathematical formulas when introducing the training modes of neural networks, and the evaluation methods used confusion matrices and ROC and AUC curves lack proof results. The model training data is insufficient.
3. The content of the article is a bit brief, and the summary section should include the problems encountered in the experiment, as well as whether the method you proposed has any shortcomings, providing direction guidance for future researchers.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAverage
Author Response
Responding to questions and suggestions, the changes are sent to you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Collegues,
1. This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) ????
2. Did the patients agree to fill in the questionnaires and give their consent through a signature??
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Dear Collegues,
1. This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) ????
2. Did the patients agree to fill in the questionnaires and give their consent through a signature??
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Reviewer #1
Dear Colleagues
- This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) ????
R: Thanks for your comments. The research was carried out with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by a bioethics committee; the information is found in the manuscript on lines 406 to 408.
- Did the patients agree to fill in the questionnaires and give their consent through a signature??
R: Thanks for your comments. The information is found in the manuscript on lines 409 to 410.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo improvement was observed, and my initial opinion remains unchanged.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript exhibits inadequate fluency. It requires not only grammatical corrections but also improvements in structure and overall fluency.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Reviewer #3
No improvement was observed, and my initial opinion remains unchanged.
The manuscript exhibits inadequate fluency. It requires not only grammatical corrections but also improvements in structure and overall fluency.
R: Thanks for your comments. To respond to your comments, we go back from round 1
It's challenging to follow the text due to the scientific writing style employed. Excessive use of prepositions and lengthy sentences disrupt the Flow of the text.
R: Thank you for your comment, the manuscript was sent for language style correction and design editing (ID 81683)
The introduction loops back and forth on the topics without anchoring them, hindering the development of reasoning on the desired investigative theme.
R: Thanks for your comments. The introduction has been improved from the first round, lines 40-106
The innovation was not clearly presented, and the objectives have already been extensively studied in previous research.
R: Thanks for your comments. We consider that the work is of great importance because we are proposing predictive factors to prevent sports injuries, although it is true that there is literature, they do it conventionally or they only provide an overview of injury prevention, but not a prediction based on factors.
Only on PubMed, there are 128 narrative and systematic reviews discussing kinesiophobia with similar arguments.
R: Thanks for your comments. We consider that the work is of great importance because we are proposing predictive factors to prevent sports injuries, although it is true that there is literature, they do it conventionally or they only provide an overview of injury prevention, but not a prediction based on factors.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
