Asymmetry and changes in the neuromuscular profile of short-track athletes as a result of strength training

Paweł Pakosz; Anna Lukanova-Jakubowska; Edyta Łuszczki; Mariusz Gnoiński; Oscar García-García

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261265

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 8, 2021
1 Sep 2021 Decision Letter - Emiliano Cè, Editor PONE-D-21-22288 Asymmetry and changes in the neuromuscular profile as a result of strength training PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Pakosz, 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. Your ms has been revised by two experts in the field. As you can see in the report, there are several major points the reviewers have raised. In particular, consider the indications provided by Reviewer 1 about the static approach used. Also, consider making as strong revision of the English as both Reviewers indicated to revise it. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 16 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, Emiliano Cè Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. 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 2. 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. 3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: “NO authors have competing interests” 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. 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. [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: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: Yes ****** 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: The article is original and presents novel information in what concerns to short track athletes adaptations to strength training. The procedures are appropriate to accomplish the objectives of the study. The English is understandable but should be improved. The title is too generic. I recommend to change it to “Asymmetry and changes in the neuromuscular profile of short track athletes as a result of strength training” In the introduction it would be important a briefly presentation of the physiological demands of the sport, and a brief overview of the TMG signals adaptations to strength training. The sample size is small, but the fact that the participants are high level athletes in a poorly studied sport is a valuable input of the article. Although the athletes are clearly very experienced in what concerns to the sport, their experience in what concerns to strength training may not be the same. With an average age of 18,8 years old and probably encompassing athletes u-18, the number of years of strength training may not be the same and this would result in different neuromuscular chronic adaptations of the athletes and therefore it would influence the magnitude of the results obtained in each athlete. Can you provide this information? Or can you ensure the homogeneity of the strength training status of the athletes? The type, intensity and volume are described in the text, but it would be beneficial to the reader if this information is presented in a table. For example, a table with the microcycles of both mesocycles in lines and the training types in columns (endurance, strength/power and ice). It is optional to the author but I think it would help readers without knowledge about the sport, the physiological demands and the type of training. It is not clear if the recovery mesocycle took place right after or before the preparation mesocycle. The paragraph in ll.105-119 presents many repeated ideas of the previous paragraph. The sentences that are entirely equal should be rewritten or they should mention the above paragraph information. The participants had a familiarization during the warm-up with the CMJ? It is a technical jump, and the learning during the first attempts should be considered. ll.226. You start the sentence with “the differences in strength”. This should be used with caution because you do not measure strength of the lower limb directly in the jumping movement or indirectly in any maximum strength test (e.g. squat, leg press or mid-thigh pull), you measure the flight time and you assume that the observed differences are due to increased strength of the lower limbs. Am I right? I think this paragraph should be rewritten, and maybe you should describe information of other studies clearly showing that differences in flight time are caused by differences in peak force or rate of force development. ll.247. It should be plantar flexion muscles GL and GM Reviewer #2: The present study aimed to "assess the strength and characteristics of short track female athletes' muscles, as well as biomedical signal changes in the neuromuscular profile under the effect of a monthly period of exercises focused on improvement in muscle strength parameters, and secondly focused on recovery." I'd like to provide some positive feedback to the authors, although I have several major concerns. i) assessing elite athletes is always hard; ii) the detailed description of the training program and "recovery" program is not so common to read in scientific literature and it should be exactly the way the authors did it. Concerns: 1. The manuscript is hard to read and follow the main ideas. I strongly recommend that authors some proof-reading. This is critical since the motivation and rationale is very confusing, and partly due to English issues. 2. The introduction hardly leads the reader to the proposed aim and hypotheses. Just to provide an example of what I mean. in the last paragraph of the intro one can read "In the short track, the athletes always skate to the left, so it was also checked, how much the parameters of the muscles in both lower limbs vary among themselves in the athletes in this asymmetric sport discipline and to determine the reference values for the discipline."...which I believe the authors intended to discuss and point out potential asymmetries in this sport. However, such topic is hardly discussed within the intro and a common reader hardly understands why does it matter (is it really "bad" to be asymmetric in such "a asymmetric sport"). I am not trying to say it does, or does not, matter. But this needs a clear discussion so the reader can get the whole picture of what and why the authors are investigated such thing. Note this is just one example of the lack of a strong rationale within the introduction 3. statistical analysis: are you really calculating ICC analysis (note: please report SEM values), correlations, and a 2 factors design with an N =7? I am sorry, but no matter how large the effect size can be...this is potentially tremendously biased. I fully understand this is an elite group, and maybe you only have access to 7 elite athletes. But there are many others statistical approaches to deal with such type of data set (e.g. single-subject analysis. 4. Study design: At a certain point I got very confused. The authors mentioned a pre vs post, left vs right, and experimental vs control (note: this last one does not seem the best terminology to be). I couldn't see this design being tested in your statistical approach, I may have missed some. I do have some other minor comments but I would like to see these ones addressed before further detailed comments. Also, considering my comments I first need to be clarified in all these aspects before I comment the discussion and conclusion sections. ****** 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.0261265.r001
Revision 1
21 Oct 2021 Author Response Reviewer #1: The article is original and presents novel information in what concerns to short track athletes adaptations to strength training. The procedures are appropriate to accomplish the objectives of the study. The English is understandable but should be improved. Thank you for your valuable comment and positive feedback. English language corrected, certificate attached. The title is too generic. I recommend to change it to “Asymmetry and changes in the neuromuscular profile of short track athletes as a result of strength training” Thank you for your valuable comment. The title of the manuscript has been changed. Asymmetry and changes in the neuromuscular profile of short-track athletes as a result of strength training In the introduction it would be important a briefly presentation of the physiological demands of the sport, and a brief overview of the TMG signals adaptations to strength training. We fully understand your comment. Added text to the manuscript as follows: On the other hand, speed skaters need to adopt a biomechanically favourable crouched position that is essential for the best skating performance. At the same time, high intramuscular forces lead to physiological disadvantages and fatigue. Therefore short-track training is physiologically demanding and requires longer recovery periods than for example long track training [3,4]. And Using TMG, it is also possible to investigate muscle fibre status and a change in speed, strength or endurance in these muscles [17,18]. The sample size is small, but the fact that the participants are high level athletes in a poorly studied sport is a valuable input of the article. Although the athletes are clearly very experienced in what concerns to the sport, their experience in what concerns to strength training may not be the same. With an average age of 18,8 years old and probably encompassing athletes u-18, the number of years of strength training may not be the same and this would result in different neuromuscular chronic adaptations of the athletes and therefore it would influence the magnitude of the results obtained in each athlete. Can you provide this information? Or can you ensure the homogeneity of the strength training status of the athletes? Thank you for your valuable comment. The athletes were a selected national team, which had been preparing for 4 years with the same training cycle. Previously, they were trained by national sports associations with unified central training, so the amount of strength training was similar, even more so in the period immediately preceding the study. However, the text of the article was added for clarification purposes: To make the results homogeneous, the study was conducted only on athletes who had been training with the same training system for 4 years. The type, intensity and volume are described in the text, but it would be beneficial to the reader if this information is presented in a table. For example, a table with the microcycles of both mesocycles in lines and the training types in columns (endurance, strength/power and ice). It is optional to the author but I think it would help readers without knowledge about the sport, the physiological demands and the type of training. Thank you for your valuable comment. This will actually make it easier for the reader to read, so Table 1 and 2 have been added to the text as suggested. Table 1: Number of training units in microcycles in the recovery training period Microcycle Aerobic endurance - LT threshold training Strength/Power Supportive training outside the ice Introductory 2 1 - Regenerative 3 1 2 Regenerative 3 1 2 Regenerative 3 1 2 Table 2: Number of training units in microcycles in the preparation training period Microcycle Aerobic endurance - LT threshold training Strength/Power Anaerobic training Supportive training on ice Introductory 4 2 1 4 Building 3 3 2 3 Building 3 3 2 3 Regenerative 3 1 - 2 It is not clear if the recovery mesocycle took place right after or before the preparation mesocycle. We are grateful for your comment. Text added as follows: A measurement of the effects of regeneration training took place before the preparatory training tests, according to the athletes’ annual macrocycle. The paragraph in ll.105-119 presents many repeated ideas of the previous paragraph. The sentences that are entirely equal should be rewritten or they should mention the above paragraph information. Thank you for your valuable comment. We have changed part of the manuscript as follows: The monthly recovery training period (detraining) takes place before the preparation training period. It consists of one introductory microcycle and three regenerative microcycles (Table 1). Training took place 4-6 times per microcycle. The main training was the LT threshold training performed in the form of running or cycling at a set heart rate using the continuous method. Such training was performed by the athletes 2-3 times per microcycle. Strength training took place once a week during the recovery period. Strength endurance was performed in 2-3 series, with 12-15 repetitions . The main exercises were squats; forward, sideways and backward lunges; exercises to strengthen the core muscles; stability and balance exercises and strengthening of deep muscles with rubber bands. Secondary training during this period, was supplementary suited to the individual needs of each athlete separately. Once per microcycle, the athletes played several games combined with flexibility training. The participants had a familiarization during the warm-up with the CMJ? It is a technical jump, and the learning during the first attempts should be considered. We are grateful for your comment. Text added as follows: During the warm-up, athletes became familiar with the CMJ techniques, and these jumps were not taken for the calculation. After the athletes had learned the correct jumping technique, the examination started. ll.226. You start the sentence with “the differences in strength”. This should be used with caution because you do not measure strength of the lower limb directly in the jumping movement or indirectly in any maximum strength test (e.g. squat, leg press or mid-thigh pull), you measure the flight time and you assume that the observed differences are due to increased strength of the lower limbs. Am I right? I think this paragraph should be rewritten, and maybe you should describe information of other studies clearly showing that differences in flight time are caused by differences in peak force or rate of force development. We are grateful for your valuable comment. Reworded paragraph as follows: After the monthly strength training program, differences in the strength of the lower limb muscles, measured according to contact mat parameters - flight time, flight height, and power - were demonstrated in the research we conducted. Therefore, we confirmed the hypothesis, that strength training contributes to a significant improvement in the height, time, and power of the jumps. ll.247. It should be plantar flexion muscles GL and GM Thank you for your valuable comment. Text changed as follows: plantar flexion muscles, GL and GM, Reviewer #2: The present study aimed to "assess the strength and characteristics of short track female athletes' muscles, as well as biomedical signal changes in the neuromuscular profile under the effect of a monthly period of exercises focused on improvement in muscle strength parameters, and secondly focused on recovery." I'd like to provide some positive feedback to the authors, although I have several major concerns. i) assessing elite athletes is always hard; ii) the detailed description of the training program and "recovery" program is not so common to read in scientific literature and it should be exactly the way the authors did it. Concerns: 1. The manuscript is hard to read and follow the main ideas. I strongly recommend that authors some proof-reading. This is critical since the motivation and rationale is very confusing, and partly due to English issues. Thank you for your valuable comment and positive feedback. English language corrected, certificate attached. 2. The introduction hardly leads the reader to the proposed aim and hypotheses. Just to provide an example of what I mean. in the last paragraph of the intro one can read "In the short track, the athletes always skate to the left, so it was also checked, how much the parameters of the muscles in both lower limbs vary among themselves in the athletes in this asymmetric sport discipline and to determine the reference values for the discipline."...which I believe the authors intended to discuss and point out potential asymmetries in this sport. However, such topic is hardly discussed within the intro and a common reader hardly understands why does it matter (is it really "bad" to be asymmetric in such "a asymmetric sport"). I am not trying to say it does, or does not, matter. But this needs a clear discussion so the reader can get the whole picture of what and why the authors are investigated such thing. Note this is just one example of the lack of a strong rationale within the introduction Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Much of the introduction and discussion has been improved to better guide the reader. 3. statistical analysis: are you really calculating ICC analysis (note: please report SEM values), correlations, and a 2 factors design with an N =7? I am sorry, but no matter how large the effect size can be...this is potentially tremendously biased. I fully understand this is an elite group, and maybe you only have access to 7 elite athletes. But there are many others statistical approaches to deal with such type of data set (e.g. single-subject analysis. We fully understand your comment. The reason for calculating ICC and CV is to establish the reliability of the evaluator's measurement in the TMG and the CMJ. In the reviews carried out on the use of TMG, the assessment standard strongly recommends to include the reliability calculation to ensure the quality of the data, since this is a key element (Macgregor et al., 2018; García-García et al., 2019). For this, two assessments were carried out with each athlete about 15 min apart. For TMG, although there were only 7 athletes, data of 8 muscles were collected for each of these seven athletes, which implies a good number of cases for subsequent analysis. For its calculation we have followed the indications of Shrout and Fleiss (1979) and Koo and Li (2016) and for calculating the intra-rater reliability a 2-way mixed-effects is suggested appropriately. In order to be well explained in the manuscript, we have added the following paragraph at the end of the study design section: To report the intraday reliability of the measurement (Swift SpeedMat platform and TMG) for each evaluation, two measurements were performed in each athlete separated by a period of 15 min. All measures were carried out by the same evaluator who has extensive experience in the use of both tools. Text added as follows: All measurements were carried out by the same evaluator who had extensive experience in the use of both tools. In addition, following your suggestion, the SEM has been calculated, which is reflected in the results section: The reliability values (ICC, 95% CI; CV and %SEM) obtained were: FT .99 (.95-.99), cv 1%, SEM .96%; JH .99 (.94-.99), cv 2.1%, SEM 1.94%; JP .99 (.97-.99), cv 2.1%, 1.87%; Dm .92 (.80-.97), cv 6.5%, SEM 7.35%; Tc .92 (.80 - .96), cv 4.4%, SEM 4.37%; Td .93 (.84 - .97), cv 3.4%, SEM 2.89%. In the statistical analysis section, the following information has been added: The percentage of standard error of measurement (%SEM) has also been used as an absolute reliability measure. SEM= √MSE, where MSE is the mean square error term from the repeated-measures ANOVA. %SEM was calculated as SEM/M × 100, where M is the mean of the two intraday measurements. 4. Study design: At a certain point I got very confused. The authors mentioned a pre vs post, left vs right, and experimental vs control (note: this last one does not seem the best terminology to be). I couldn't see this design being tested in your statistical approach, I may have missed some. Thank you for your valuable comment. The study design has been corrected. In fact, the statement regarding groups was used in an unfortunate way. As a result, the control group was changed throughout the manuscript to a test after recovery training and the experimental group to a test after strength training. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261265.r002
29 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Emiliano Cè, Editor Asymmetry and changes in the neuromuscular profile of short-track athletes as a result of strength training PONE-D-21-22288R1 Dear Dr. Pakosz, 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, Emiliano Cè 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 #1: 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 #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: (No Response) ****** 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 #1: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261265.r003
Formally Accepted
9 Dec 2021 Acceptance Letter - Emiliano Cè, Editor PONE-D-21-22288R1 Asymmetry and changes in the neuromuscular profile of short-track athletes as a result of strength training Dear Dr. Pakosz: 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 Professor Emiliano Cè Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261265.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 .