Learning effect on an isokinetic knee strength test protocol among male adolescent athletes

Daniela C. Costa; João Valente-dos-Santos; Jorge M. Celis-Moreno; Paulo Sousa-e-Silva; Diogo V. Martinho; João P. Duarte; Tomás Oliveira; Oscar M. Tavares; Joaquim M. Castanheira; Rui Soles-Gonçalves; Telmo Pereira; Jorge Conde; Daniel Courteix; David Thivel; Manuel J. Coelho-e-Silva

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288382

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 1, 2022
19 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Danica Janicijevic, Editor PONE-D-22-24405Learning effect on an isokinetic knee strength test protocol among male adolescent athletesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Manuel J. Coelho-e Silva, 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. ============================== Dear authors, I am sorry for the delay in making a decision regarding your article, I had a hard time finding appropriate reviewers. Both of the reviewers agreed that you need to introduce major changes prior to considering this article for publication. Please read carefully the comments provided below.All the best, Danica Janicijevic, academic editor ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 02 2023 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: https://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, Danica Janicijevic, Ph.D 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/fileid=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified 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. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research. 3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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: 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: No 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: Congratulations on a well organized study. Overall, I found the manuscript very interesting, and the study adds new information to this field. However, I would recommend obtaining help from an English-speaking colleague to review the text and make changes throughout (i.e. meanwhile instead of meantime) More specifically, here are further directed comments: Introduction: did not convey "why" it is important to test strength in this age group, or why this study is needed right now. lines 79-86: can combine as a range of examples in the literature, vs citing each individually. It takes too long to get to the point. lines 94-95: need more evidence to substanciate this affirmation Methods: line 113: describe the training of the observer (have they done this many times?) line 116: reconsider the format to express age, seems odd with two decimal points currently lines 143-144: not familiar if this is the standard method to correct for gravity with this device. please add reference. line 156: describe what would be considered an "atypical curve". Were there data removed in the final analysis? lines 160-161: is the sample sufficient to power a multi-level regression analysis? If not, reconsider inclusion. lines 168-171: if it was the intention to do a test-retest measurement, this should appear as a secondary goal at the end of the introduction line 171: "d-value"? Does this mean Cohen's d value? please specify Results: line 189: wording needs to be softer, i.e. regression results "suggest" these are important factors Table 3: add missing abbreviation explanations in the table notes line 255: please reword so that you state that this is a hypothesis or a speculation Discussion: lines 273-274: please reword. Lacks clarity. line 300-301: the comparison with your findings should appear much earlier in this paragraph. Needs rewriting. lines 311-312: please include description of this subsample -> do they represent the original sample well? General: Would you consider it relevant to compare relative strength results standardized by weight as well? The differences between repetitions may become more trivial statistically, but your main findings showing that an important group of participants only exhibit their maximal capacities in the last repetitions would remain true. Reviewer #2: PONE-D-22-24405 Learning effect on an isokinetic knee strength test protocol among male adolescent athletes Prof. Manuel J. Coelho-e-Silva PLOS ONE COMMENT The subject and results of presented study are of practical impotency for standardization of isokinetic dynamometer testing procedures. Invested effort for conducting and writing the paper is noticeable. However, some methodological corrections must be applied, as well as language improvements that are following almost the whole text, that should be revised and changed. I will address some of them with the following comments. It is important to notice that results are not fully presented in conjunction with tables and figures. The authors should include more information and use more clear language to present obtained results. COMMENT Page 4, lines (97 – 101): From methodologic point of view the hypotheses are missing, which is leading to later methodological problems. COMMENT Page 4, line 108: Specify participants characteristics in this section. Age of participance should be standardized through whole paper, I suggest as mean and standard deviation. COMMENT Page 5, line 115: Sample should go before procedures? COMMENT Page 5, line 125: The name of reference is missing in a text form? COMMENT Page 5, line 131: This should be subchapter Experimental procedures? COMMENT Page 7, line 168: Subsample of 17 swimmers is not mentioned in sample subchapter, what are the specific characteristic of this sample, are there differences between this subgroup and mane sample? Also in this case you have not precisely formulated the aim and hypothesize for determination of reliability of executed isokinetic test… COMMENT Page 7, line 171: Please specify what effect size measure have you used, Cohen’s d or some other? COMMENT Page 7, line 173: The Bland-Altman plot analysis is evaluating a bias between the mean differences, and to in your case estimate an agreement interval between repeated measurements. Suggestion is to correct differences into agreements. COMMENT Page 8, line (185): Table 1 should be separated into two tables, one with Descriptive morphological data (on chronological age, training experience, body size), and second one with isokinetic strength outputs. Also, Table 1 should have characteristics of subsample, or it can be in separated table. COMMENT Page 8, line 183: No need to repeat subjects characteristics. COMMENT Page 8, lines (220-228): It is very difficult the follow the description of results in correlation with figures and tables. Lines 220 – 224: The text should in subchapter that describes sample and procedures. Lines 227 – 228: What exactly several participants mean, how many of them exactly. This is not mentioned in discussion? COMMENT Page 11, lines (243-260): The authors should clarify the following section in correlation with presented hypotheses, aims, and results, to avoid confusion. The language should be revised to improve the readability. Line 246: This is not in correlation with previous mentioned sample age. COMMENT Page 13, lines (299-300): There is no need to repeat the protocol. COMMENT Pages 3-12: Reference should be added to the end of sentences in next lines: 74, 75, 78, 92, 94, 96, 274. COMMENT Pages 3-12: Better sentence formulation: lines 75 – 78, 86 – 90, 95 – 96, 97 – 101, 109 – 112, 161 – 164. ****** 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.0288382.r001
Revision 1
10 Mar 2023 Author Response 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: Partly 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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: 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: No 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: Congratulations on a well organized study. Overall, I found the manuscript very interesting, and the study adds new information to this field. However, I would recommend obtaining help from an English-speaking colleague to review the text and make changes throughout (i.e. meanwhile instead of meantime) More specifically, here are further directed comments: AUTHORS: The revised version was edited by English-speaking colleague. Consequently, one author was added. REVIEWER #1: Introduction: did not convey "why" it is important to test strength in this age group, or why this study is needed right now. AUTHORS: The revised version now emphasizes the importance of data quality particularly in longitudinal studies and is citing two studies of young athletes adopting different number of repetitions to retain the best torque for analysis. REVIEWER #1: lines 79-86: can combine as a range of examples in the literature, vs citing each individually. It takes too long to get to the point. AUTHORS: The revised version was abbreviated and does not include information about warm-up and details of the sample in the cited studies. REVIEWER #1: lines 94-95: need more evidence to substanciate this affirmation AUTHORS: The revised version now includes an emphasis on the need to obtain reliable measurements in the context of youth sports. Methods: REVIEWER #1: line 113: describe the training of the observer (have they done this many times?) Information added. The tests were performed by a single trained observer who accumulated more than 500 assessments. AUTHORS: The information about the observer experience is now detailed. REVIEWER #1: line 116: reconsider the format to express age, seems odd with two decimal points currently AUTHORS: Adjusted REVIEWER #1: lines 143-144: not familiar if this is the standard method to correct for gravity with this device. please add reference. AUTHORS: Reference added. REVIEWER #1: line 156: describe what would be considered an "atypical curve". Were there data removed in the final analysis? Information added AUTHORS: The sentence was adjusted, thanks. REVIEWER #1: lines 160-161: is the sample sufficient to power a multi-level regression analysis? If not, reconsider inclusion. AUTHORS: Sample size included is justified in the respective section. Level has 190 measurements, level 2 has 38 cases. REVIEWER #1: lines 168-171: if it was the intention to do a test-retest measurement, this should appear as a secondary goal at the end of the introduction AUTHORS: The aim was adjusted following your suggestion, thanks REVIEWER #1: line 171: "d-value"? Does this mean Cohen's d value? please specify AUTHORS: Added Results: REVIEWER #1: line 189: wording needs to be softer, i.e. regression results "suggest" these are important factors AUTHORS: Authors agree. Corrected REVIEWER #1: Table 3: add missing abbreviation explanations in the table notes AUTHORS: Missing abbreviations were introduced REVIEWER #1: line 255: please reword so that you state that this is a hypothesis or a speculation AUTHORS: Changed. Hopefully, it is now more understandable Discussion: REVIEWER #1: lines 273-274: please reword. Lacks clarity. AUTHORS: Clarified. Thanks. REVIEWER #1: line 300-301: the comparison with your findings should appear much earlier in this paragraph. Needs rewriting. AUTHORS: Modified accordingly REVIEWER #1: lines 311-312: please include description of this subsample -> do they represent the original sample well? AUTHORS: Mean values for chronological age, training experience, stature and body mass were now presented. They approached mean values of the total sample presented in Table 1 REVIEWER #1: General: Would you consider it relevant to compare relative strength results standardized by weight as well? The differences between repetitions may become more trivial statistically, but your main findings showing that an important group of participants only exhibit their maximal capacities in the last repetitions would remain true. AUTHORS: The conclusions were refined. The interesting note addressed by reviewer 1 would probably requires an allometric approach to the problem. Reviewer #2: COMMENT The subject and results of presented study are of practical impotency for standardization of isokinetic dynamometer testing procedures. Invested effort for conducting and writing the paper is noticeable. However, some methodological corrections must be applied, as well as language improvements that are following almost the whole text, that should be revised and changed. I will address some of them with the following comments. It is important to notice that results are not fully presented in conjunction with tables and figures. The authors should include more information and use more clear language to present obtained results. AUTHORS: The manuscript in its revised version was improved according to comments addressed by both reviewers and English was revised by David Thivel. Reviewer #2: COMMENT Page 4, lines (97 – 101): From methodologic point of view the hypotheses are missing, which is leading to later methodological problems. AUTHORS: Hypotheses were added at the end of the section introduction. Reviewer #2: COMMENT Page 4, line 108: Specify participants characteristics in this section. Age of participance should be standardized through whole paper, I suggest as mean and standard deviation. AUTHORS: The range, mean and standard deviation was now included in the revised version. Reviewer #2: COMMENT Page 5, line 115: Sample should go before procedures? AUTHORS: Thanks for the question. Authors do not agree and in all past manuscripts (including in BMC Pediatrics) the organization of the experiment including approval in ethics committee, distribution of informed consent precedes the sample. Let us wait for the editor-in-chief recommendations. If needed, authors will modify the structure of the methods section Reviewer #2: COMMENT Page 5, line 125: The name of reference is missing in a text form? AUTHORS: Corrected. Hopefully, it is now understandable for readers. Reviewer #2: COMMENT Page 5, line 131: This should be subchapter Experimental procedures? Anthropometry and isokinetic dynamometer are present now as subchapters of procedures. AUTHORS: Let us wait for the editor-in-chief recommendations. If needed, authors will modify the structure of the methods section Reviewer #2: COMMENT Page 7, line 168: Subsample of 17 swimmers is not mentioned in sample subchapter, what are the specific characteristic of this sample, are there differences between this subgroup and mane sample? AUTHORS: Now added. Thanks. Reviewer #2: Also in this case you have not precisely formulated the aim and hypothesize for determination of reliability of executed isokinetic test… AUTHORS: The final sentence of the last paragraph in the introduction was revised accordingly to this comment. Thanks. Reviewer #2: COMMENT Page 7, line 171: Please specify what effect size measure have you used, Cohen’s d or some other? It was added. AUTHORS: Reviewer #2: COMMENT Page 7, line 173: The Bland-Altman plot analysis is evaluating a bias between the mean differences, and to in your case estimate an agreement interval between repeated measurements. Suggestion is to correct differences into agreements. AUTHORS: The term “differences” was replaced by “agreements” as suggested. Reviewer #2: COMMENT Page 8, line (185): Table 1 should be separated into two tables, one with Descriptive morphological data (on chronological age, training experience, body size), and second one with isokinetic strength outputs. Also, Table 1 should have characteristics of subsample, or it can be in separated table. AUTHORS: Modified as suggested. Reviewer #2: COMMENT Page 8, line 183: No need to repeat subjects characteristics. AUTHORS: Characteristics of the participants were now concentrated in Table 1 and are not repeated in the text. Reviewer #2: COMMENT Page 8, lines (220-228): It is very difficult the follow the description of results in correlation with figures and tables. AUTHORS: Hopefully the revised version is now easier to follow. Reviewer #2: Lines 220 – 224: The text should in subchapter that describes sample and procedures. AUTHORS: Done Reviewer #2: Lines 227 – 228: What exactly several participants mean, how many of them exactly. This is not mentioned in discussion? AUTHORS: Detailed information about the number of cases who decreased their highest PT was introduced. Reviewer #2: Page 11, lines (243-260): The authors should clarify the following section in correlation with presented hypotheses, aims, and results, to avoid confusion. The language should be revised to improve the readability. AUTHORS: Improved Reviewer #2: Line 246: This is not in correlation with previous mentioned sample age. AUTHORS: Corrected Reviewer #2: COMMENT Page 13, lines (299-300): There is no need to repeat the protocol. AUTHORS: Thanks. Repetition of the protocol was deleted. Reviewer #2: COMMENT Pages 3-12: Reference should be added to the end of sentences in next lines: 74, 75, 78, 92, 94, 96, 274. AUTHORS: Added accordingly to recommendations Reviewer #2: COMMENT Pages 3-12: Better sentence formulation: lines 75 – 78, 86 – 90, 95 – 96, 97 – 101, 109 – 112, 161 – 164. AUTHORS: Refined by Professor David Thivel who was introduced as co-author. Hopefully, the manuscript is now understandable. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 625_a_2_COMMENTS_point-per-point_20230228.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288382.r002
15 May 2023 Decision Letter - Emiliano Cè, Editor PONE-D-22-24405R1Learning effect on an isokinetic knee strength test protocol among male adolescent athletesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Coelho-e-Silva, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Dear Authors, two experts in the field reviewed your revised manuscript version founding some minor points you should consider in the revision process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 29 2023 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: https://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: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: (No Response) 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 #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: No 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 #1: Thank you for editing this new version of your manuscript with careful consideration for the comments from both reviewers. This version is a very significant improvement for international readers. I would recommend further attention to the following comments for the next round: In general, try to decrease the length of your sentences to avoid syntax errors and to make reading easier to follow for your audience. - Objective 2: state as test-retest reliability for clarity. Current wording makes it harder to distinguish from first objective. - line 78: "meantime" should be "meanwhile" (as per round 1 comments) - although improved, paragraph 1 of the introduction still for me does not convey the importance of your main point: protocols differ between studies, sometimes 3 or 5 (or more). Validity of shorter protocols may be compromised if the peak torque is not obtained in the first three attempts. - lines 95 to 103: needs rewriting. The content is there, but syntax is not at the correct level - line 111: avoid using reference [15] about multiple sclerosis. This population has specific fatigue problems related to their neurological condition that cannot be compared with healthy youth swimmers - lines 119/120: sentence appears incomplete. add what the ICC values are? - lines 130/131: as previously mentioned, use term test-retest reliability for the international audience - lines 155/159: the sample size calculation here does not work. You are using the number of measurements instead of the number of participants. The sentence described is coherent to evaluate the sample needed to power the test-retest comparison. You also need to state what the expected difference (effect size) would be between groups to justify the sample size. - lines 159-164: good information, but should be moved to either the introduction or the discussion - line 183: use the term "height" instead of stature for international audience. Change in Table 1 as well - line 196: "strips" should be the word "straps" - line 210: how was the data filtered? - lines 214-215: this seems backwards. Would normally expect the raw data to be filtered to remove noise, then corrected for limb inertia, and then select only the data from the target speed (+/- 5%). Described as such, it seems you followed a different process. - line 229: define what you mean by "technical error of measurement" - lines 250-252: leave interpretation sentences for the discussion, does not belong in the Results - Table 1: much improved, good to see the information for both groups here - Table 2: must explain why there is not consistently the same number of participants for each rep? Is this related to the data processing question from lines 214-215? How do you explain that the ICC for KFcc is lower despite the values being more similar across the 5 repetitions? - lines 301/309: paragraph is not clear enough, needs to be rewritten - lines 311/313: link this information with your findings. it seems lost otherwise - line 339: i believe you are presenting your values, please make it explicit for the reader - lines 372/374: I appreciate that you considered my comment about relative strength measurements, but I would like you to confirm that you have proceeded with this calculation and confirmed that your statistical conclusions remain the same Reviewer #2: COMMENT Thank the authors for taking previous review advisees in preparing the presented study for publishing. Significant changes and improvements are noticeable. I will only suggest a few more corrections. The most important advice is to explain more about the differences between obtained results with the previous studies regarding both experimental questions. Father, to explain in more detail why the obtained mean difference and %CV between the first and second testing in KEcc and KEecc, is higher (is there a significant difference beside small ES)? Overall, the study has provided exciting and valuable data regarding standardizing the protocol of isokinetic testing of youth athletes. Some additional corrections and suggestions: COMMENTS Page 5, line 120: Can you please specify the range of ICC in previous studies, and type of motoric tasks or activity? Page 6, line 159: There is no need to repeat the number of subjects. Page 6-7, lines 159 - 164: This part should be in introduction. The number of the reference can be added to justify the sample size power. Page 7, line 172: Can you please define how many days past between testing days (mean)? Page 7, table 1: Suggestion - present as “mean±SD” instead “Mean Standard deviation” Page 8, line 183: Without “described elsewhere” in sentence. Page 8, line 184-185: A portable scale was used for measuring of body mass, please make the sentence clearer? ****** 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: Yes: Félix Croteau 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: COMMENT 2 11052023 Learning effect on an isokinetic knee strength test protocol.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288382.r003
Revision 2
14 Jun 2023 Author Response PONE-D-22-24405R1 Learning effect on an isokinetic knee strength test protocol among male adolescent athletes Dear Dr. Coelho-e-Silva, 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. ============================================================= ACADEMIC EDITOR: Dear Authors, two experts in the field reviewed your revised manuscript version founding some minor points you should consider in the revision process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 29 2023 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: https://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: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. AUTHORS: The revised version was carefully checked. ============================================================= 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: (No Response) 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 #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: No 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 #1: Thank you for editing this new version of your manuscript with careful consideration for the comments from both reviewers. This version is a very significant improvement for international readers. AUTHORS: Thanks. I would recommend further attention to the following comments for the next round: In general, try to decrease the length of your sentences to avoid syntax errors and to make reading easier to follow for your audience. AUTHORS: Authors have reduced the sentences and the manuscript was edited by David Thivel who obtained the PhD in Canada. - Objective 2: state as test-retest reliability for clarity. Current wording makes it harder to distinguish from first objective. AUTHORS: Refined as suggested. - line 78: "meantime" should be "meanwhile" (as per round 1 comments) AUTHORS: Changed as suggested. - although improved, paragraph 1 of the introduction still for me does not convey the importance of your main point: protocols differ between studies, sometimes 3 or 5 (or more). Validity of shorter protocols may be compromised if the peak torque is not obtained in the first three attempts. AUTHORS: Thanks for the comment. The essential is now in the final sentence of the abstract and adequately commented across the manuscript. The revised version is now more objective and concise. - lines 95 to 103: needs rewriting. The content is there, but syntax is not at the correct level AUTHORS: Adjusted as recommended. - line 111: avoid using reference [15] about multiple sclerosis. This population has specific fatigue problems related to their neurological condition that cannot be compared with healthy youth swimmers AUTHORS: Deleted. - lines 119/120: sentence appears incomplete. add what the ICC values are? AUTHORS: Adjusted as recommended. - lines 130/131: as previously mentioned, use term test-retest reliability for the international audience AUTHORS: Changed as recommended across the entire manuscript. - lines 155/159: the sample size calculation here does not work. You are using the number of measurements instead of the number of participants. The sentence described is coherent to evaluate the sample needed to power the test-retest comparison. You also need to state what the expected difference (effect size) would be between groups to justify the sample size. AUTHORS: Information regarding calculation of power sample is now included for the various analysis. - lines 159-164: good information, but should be moved to either the introduction or the discussion AUTHORS: Done as suggested. - line 183: use the term "height" instead of stature for international audience. Change in Table 1 as well AUTHORS: Stature refers to the specific height of the vertex. In all previous studies, authors adopt the term stature. - line 196: "strips" should be the word "straps" AUTHORS: Thanks. Changed. - line 210: how was the data filtered? - lines 214-215: this seems backwards. Would normally expect the raw data to be filtered to remove noise, then corrected for limb inertia, and then select only the data from the target speed (+/- 5%). Described as such, it seems you followed a different process. AUTHORS: The revised version now includes the information. - line 229: define what you mean by "technical error of measurement" AUTHORS: Detailed. - lines 250-252: leave interpretation sentences for the discussion, does not belong in the Results AUTHORS: Agree. Deleted. - Table 1: much improved, good to see the information for both groups here AUTHORS: Thanks. - Table 2: must explain why there is not consistently the same number of participants for each rep? Is this related to the data processing question from lines 214-215? How do you explain that the ICC for KFcc is lower despite the values being more similar across the 5 repetitions? AUTHORS: The following was added in Table 2: * For each repetition, when PT was not obtained within 95% of the settled angular velocity, data was not retained for analysis. Multilevel structures do not require balanced data to obtain eﬃcient estimates. In other words, it is not necessary to have the same number of lower-level units within each higher-level unit. With repeated measures data we do not require the same number of measurement occasions per individual subject (level 2). In this type of model (i.e., variance components model), the residual variance is partitioned into components corresponding to each 2 level in the hierarchy and the variance between repetition and the variance between individuals within a given repetition are obtained. ICC, provides the proportion of the total residual variation. Briefly, the apparently stable mean values for each repetitions combined to lower ICC for KFcc, indicate large intra-individual fluctuation of performance scores and inter-individual variance. The PT value is not fully stable across the five repetitions. - lines 301/309: paragraph is not clear enough, needs to be rewritten AUTHORS: Improved, substantially. - lines 311/313: link this information with your findings. it seems lost otherwise AUTHORS: linked. - line 339: i believe you are presenting your values, please make it explicit for the reader AUTHORS: It is now explicit. - lines 372/374: I appreciate that you considered my comment about relative strength measurements, but I would like you to confirm that you have proceeded with this calculation and confirmed that your statistical conclusions remain the same AUTHORS: Figures were revised and now refers to error in N.m per unit of body mass, that is, N.m/kg Reviewer #2: COMMENT Thank the authors for taking previous review advisees in preparing the presented study for publishing. Significant changes and improvements are noticeable. I will only suggest a few more corrections. The most important advice is to explain more about the differences between obtained results with the previous studies regarding both experimental questions. Father, to explain in more detail why the obtained mean difference and %CV between the first and second testing in KEcc and KEecc, is higher (is there a significant difference beside small ES)? Overall, the study has provided exciting and valuable data regarding standardizing the protocol of isokinetic testing of youth athletes. AUTHORS: Thanks. In fact, Table 2 confirms that the magnitude of changes in mean values between testing sessions is negligible (small). This is well illustrated in Figures. However, %CV is larger for knee extensors than for knee flexors. Figure 2 has now identical Y-axis for KE and KF. This is now adequately commented in the main findings at discussion section. Some additional corrections and suggestions: COMMENTS Page 5, line 120: Can you please specify the range of ICC in previous studies, and type of motoric tasks or activity? AUTHORS: The range of ICCs and type of activities were added to the introduction. Thanks. Page 6, line 159: There is no need to repeat the number of subjects. AUTHORS: Adjusted. Page 6-7, lines 159 - 164: This part should be in introduction. The number of the reference can be added to justify the sample size power. AUTHORS: The sentence was moved to the introduction. The following reference was added to justify the sample size used on the paired-t test analysis: van Tittelboom, Vanessa et al. “Reliability of Isokinetic Strength Assessments of Knee and Hip Using the Biodex System 4 Dynamometer and Associations With Functional Strength in Healthy Children.” Frontiers in sports and active living vol. 4 817216. 24 Feb. 2022, doi:10.3389/fspor.2022.817216 Page 7, line 172: Can you please define how many days past between testing days (mean)? AUTHORS: This point is now clarified. Page 7, table 1: Suggestion - present as “mean±SD” instead “Mean Standard deviation” AUTHORS: Adjusted. Page 8, line 183: Without “described elsewhere” in sentence. AUTHORS: Adjusted. Page 8, line 184-185: A portable scale was used for measuring of body mass, please make the sentence clearer? AUTHORS: The sentence was adjusted. 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: Yes: Félix Croteau 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. In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Remove my information/details). Please contact the publication office if you have any questions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 658_a_2_Response to reviewers_MJCS_JVS_DVM_20230614.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288382.r004
26 Jun 2023 Decision Letter - Emiliano Cè, Editor Learning effect on an isokinetic knee strength test protocol among male adolescent athletes PONE-D-22-24405R2 Dear Dr. Coelho-e-Silva, 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 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: I am fully satisfied with the modifications that you made on this final revision. This study will bring important knowledge to the field of isokinetic testing. Minor adjustments for publishing: line 93 in the introduction: change "probably" for "potentially". As per your results, many people still get their peak values in the early repetitions line 363: change "By obvious reasons" for "therefore" line 371: change "meantime" for "meanwhile" line 388: remove "probably" Reviewer #2: Thank the authors for taking previous review advisees in preparing the presented study for publishing. The study has provided exciting and valuable data regarding standardizing the protocol of isokinetic testing of youth athletes. I wish a lot of success in a future research work. ****** 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 Reviewer #2: No ******** Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: COMMENT 3 126062023 Learning effect on an isokinetic knee strength test protocol.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288382.r005
Formally Accepted
18 Jul 2023 Acceptance Letter - Emiliano Cè, Editor PONE-D-22-24405R2 Learning effect on an isokinetic knee strength test protocol among male adolescent athletes Dear Dr. Coelho-e-Silva: 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 Prof. Emiliano Cè Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288382.r006

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 .