Using an artificial neural network to develop an optimal model of straight punch in boxing and training in punch techniques based on this model and real-time feedback

Ilshat Khasanshin; Aleksey Osipov

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0259457

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 10, 2021
2 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Thippa Reddy Gadekallu, Editor PONE-D-21-15481 Using an artificial neural network to develop an optimal model of straight punch in boxing and training in punch techniques based on this model and real-time feedback PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Khasanshin, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. As per the comments received from the reviewers and my own observation, I recommend major revisions for the paper. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 17 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Thippa Reddy Gadekallu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: No. At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: NO Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 1. Introduction section can be extended to add the issues in the context of the existing work 2. Literature review techniques have to be strengthened by including the issues in the current system and how the author proposes to overcome the same. 3. What is the motivation of the proposed work? 4. Research gaps, objectives of the proposed work should be clearly justified. 5. The authors should consider more recent research done in the field of their study (especially in the years 2018 and 2020 onwards). 6. The paper needs to provide significant experimental details to correctly assess its contribution: What is the validation procedure used? 7. Kindly provide several references to substantiate the claim made in the abstract (that is, provide references to other groups who do or have done research in this area). 8. An error and statistical analysis of data should be performed. 9. The conclusion should state scope for future work. 10. Discuss the future plans with respect to the research state of progress and its limitations. 11. Kindly refer the below paper: 1. Rajput, D.S., Basha, S.M., Xin, Q. et al. Providing diagnosis on diabetes using cloud computing environment to the people living in rural areas of India. J Ambient Intell Human Comput (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-021-03154-4 Reviewer #2: This paper has potential but few things need to be arranged Introduction lacks contribution and structure is missing Figures need to be improved You need to top up the literature review suggested should be applied https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9430519 and Data collection method https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140366420318442 Conclusion should be improved grammar should be improved ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259457.r001
Revision 1
29 Jun 2021 Author Response In general, we would like to thank the reviewers, whose comments helped us to take a fresh look at our work and significantly improve it. Reviewer #1: 1. Introduction section can be extended to add the issues in the context of the existing work. 2. Literature review techniques have to be strengthened by including the issues in the current system and how the author proposes to overcome the same. 4. Research gaps, objectives of the proposed work should be clearly justified. These are interrelated questions and comments. We agree with all the comments, so we have completely redone the structure and content of the introduction. Each hypothesis, goal, and choice of research methods is justified by the work of other authors in this field. 3. What is the motivation of the proposed work? Sports science is actively developing, while training in the technique of punches in boxing is still intuitive. The student imitates the movements of the teacher and this process does not yet have measurable parameters. Research on the biomechanics of punches almost does not help coaches, you need a model that fits well into coaching practice. 5. The authors should consider more recent research done in the field of their study (especially in the years 2018 and 2020 onwards). We have extended the list of peer-reviewed papers in this area, especially with articles published over the past year. 6. The paper needs to provide significant experimental details to correctly assess its contribution: What is the validation procedure used? We have supplemented the article K-fold method of cross-validation of the model. We also supplemented the article with statistical data verification. 7. Kindly provide several references to substantiate the claim made in the abstract (that is, provide references to other groups who do or have done research in this area). The abstract has been significantly revised and expanded, and it is limited to 300 words, so references to similar works are included in the sections "Introduction" and " Results and discussion". 8. An error and statistical analysis of data should be performed. We supplemented the article with statistical data verification. Statistical analysis was performed in Statistica, a software package for statistical analysis developed by StatSoft, which implements the functions of data analysis, data management, data mining, data visualization using statistical methods. The average value of the series punches and the confidence interval 0.95 were calculated. 9. The conclusion should state scope for future work. 10. Discuss the future plans with respect to the research state of progress and its limitations. Very good point. In the studies, raw IMUs data was used as a dataset, and in further studies, it is planned to apply pre-processing of the data (normalization, reduction of the dimension of the input data, etc.). Only a straight boxing punch was chosen for the study, as it is the simplest in terms of coordination characteristics. However, based on the study, it can be assumed that for other boxing punches (hook, swing, uppercut), it will also be possible to develop an optimal model. Therefore, it is planned to conduct research in order to develop an optimal model of other boxing punches. 11. Kindly refer the below paper: 1. Rajput, D.S., Basha, S.M., Xin, Q. et al. Providing diagnosis on diabetes using cloud computing environment to the people living in rural areas of India. J Ambient Intell Human Comput (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-021-03154-4 A useful article, we have included it in the work. Reviewer #2: Introduction lacks contribution and structure is missing We have completely redone the structure and content of the introduction. Each hypothesis, goal, and choice of research methods is justified by the work of other authors in this field. Figures need to be improved All figures have a resolution of 600 dpi, in accordance with the requirements of PLOS ONE. You need to top up the literature review We have extended the list of peer-reviewed papers in this area, especially with articles published over the past year. suggested should be applied https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9430519 and Data collection method https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140366420318442 A useful article, we have included it in the work. Conclusion should be improved We have reworked the conclusion, including our future research plans in this area. grammar should be improved We tried to improve the grammar of the article Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to the review.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259457.r002
20 Oct 2021 Decision Letter - Bijan Najafi, Editor Using an artificial neural network to develop an optimal model of straight punch in boxing and training in punch techniques based on this model and real-time feedback PONE-D-21-15481R1 Dear Dr. Khasanshin, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Bijan Najafi Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: The research, using artificial neural network to develop what I called Punch mechanism has been improved and i have no further objection ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259457.r003
Formally Accepted
5 Nov 2021 Acceptance Letter - Bijan Najafi, Editor PONE-D-21-15481R1 Using an artificial neural network to develop an optimal model of straight punch in boxing and training in punch techniques based on this model and real-time feedback Dear Dr. Khasanshin: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Bijan Najafi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259457.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .