PONE-D-23-21774Relationship Between Isometric Hamstrings to Quadriceps Torque Ratio and Athletes' Plyometric PerformancePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Babakhani,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 23 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,

Esedullah Akaras

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. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. 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 move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors, a major revision has been requested for your article.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

**********

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: Dear Authors,

First of all, thank you for valuable effort on this manuscript.

The following points are presented after my review.

- The title of the study should be revised. The entire text has been academic language-reviewed.

- Is "double" meant to be denoted by "dabble" in the term "dibble leg-drop vertical jump"? The use of the word "dabble" does not seem appropriate.

- It is recommended to briefly indicate which parameters are used in the RSImod calculation in the method section of the summary.

- The H:Q ratio mentioned in the Introduction section is evaluated as isometric and more recently isokinetic tests (because it provides the opportunity to perform functional analysis). Within the scope of this study, the reasons why the isometric H:Q ratio will be examined instead of the dynamic H:Q ratio should be given in more detail.

- Although it is mentioned for what purpose the RSDmod index is used or what it is an indicator of, it has not been mentioned exactly how it is calculated. For a first-time reader, although methods are also mentioned, it would be better to include a brief explanation over a task in this section, at least by mentioning which physical parameters it is calculated using for this index.

- "If yes! to what extent does increasing or decreasing H:Q torque ratio affect the athletes' jumping performance?" Instead of this question, a interpretation can be made based on the according results, or not specified at all.

- Despite the power analysis, sample size is limited. Considering the inclusion of subjects of different genders, the number of subjects is low compared to other similar studies (usually single-gender subjects were evaluated in other similar studies) and in terms of making a clear conclusion from the results of the study.

- No information on gender distribution was provided.

- It is recommended to mention which sports the subjects are doing.

- Ethics committee approval protocol number should be attached.

- If the tests were done in a single session, it should be stated whether sufficient rest breaks are given between muscle test and performance tests and how long it is given.

- As a procedure explanation, which test has been done first, the procedure of this test should be given first, followed by the other. The relevant sections should be rearranged by paying attention to the order of the test procedure explanations. A subtitle can be created about jump tests, as others.

- The figures in figure 1 are illustrative but it has not clearly seen as one leg during landing on the SL-DVJ task. Is it the first landing on one leg or the second landing? or both of them? It is recommended to review and revise the figure from this perspective.

- Under the heading "The hamstring-to-quadriceps (H:Q) torque ratio measurement", the calculation part should be placed after the test procedure, not at the beginning of the paragraph.

- The quadriceps femoris muscle, generally referred to as "quadriceps" throughout the manuscript, should be corrected.

- The relationship between isokinetic H/Q ratio and jumping performance parameters was investigated without using RSDmod. Some recent studies are listed below. The discussion can be rearranged by reviewing these studies.

o Atik, B., Ayberk, B., Özgül, B., & Polat, M. G. (2023). The Association Between Isokinetic Strength and Strength Asymmetry and Jump Performance in Female Volleyball Players. Sport Sciences for Health, 1-8.

o Schons P, Da Rosa RG, Fischer G et al (2019) The relationship between strength asymmetries and jumping performance in professional volleyball players. Sports Biomech. 18(5):515–526.

- One of the evaluations applied in the study is a static measurement while the other is a dynamic task. Therefore, instead of a static measurement, comments can be added about the reflection of dynamic muscle strength (isokinetic) evaluations on RSDmod can be examined. Although this situation is partially mentioned at the end of the discussion, comparative comments can be made in the first parts of the discussion by giving place to case studies from the literature.

- It should be noted that RSDmod was not used in the studies mentioned in sources 23 and 24.

- Since the RSDmod index was not used in the mentioned studies, "According to the finding of the current study and considering the results of previous studies, the authors hypothesize that as much as the complexity of the movement is increase, the correlation between H:Q torque ratio and RSImod decreases " can be commented, it is recommended to review again.

- The results of the study may also have been affected by the evaluation of athletes doing different sports.

- The discussion generally seems rather inadequate. It should be rearranged by including current similar studies.

Best Regards

Reviewer #2: The subject raised by the authors is extremely interesting. The effect of the H/Q ratio on the risk of injury is quite extensively described. However, there are few studies describing the relationship between the H/Q ratio and athletes performance. Therefore, the presented manuscript is part of filling the current knowledge gap.

The first chapter adequately introduces the reader to the problem and shows the gap in knowledge to be filled.

The methods have been described quite extensively. However, authors should use a different abbreviation than SJ for "stop jump". The abbreviation SJ is adopted and used for squat jump. Therefore, one should not suggest to the reader that the article concerns a different, biomechanically standardized jump.

The results were described and presented in sufficient detail. However, specifying the RSI unit as m/s should be considered overzealous and unnecessary. We don't want to talk about movement velocity here.

The discussion includes the interpretation of the results and references to the work of other authors.

In the Discussion - I couldn't find an author named Dekker [24]... I think it was Diker, right?

The interpretation of the obtained results and the final conclusions seem to be correct.

**********

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.

PONE-D-23-21774R1Is there a Relationship Between Isometric Hamstrings-to-Quadriceps Torque Ratio and Athletes' Plyometric Performance?PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Babakhani,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 03 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,

Esedullah Akaras

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.

[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: 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: Dear Authors,

Firstly thank you for your effort on the revisions of the manuscript. With the revisions made, it is now in a better condition.I would only like to emphasize the points I have stated in the following two items and recommend that the necessary revisions be made.

1. It seems that the word "double" should be used throughout the text instead of "dabble", as used in the summary.

2. Although it is noted that the necessary revisions have been made and highlighted in the text regarding the comments below, when the initial version and the revised version of the manuscript are compared, the sections highlighted in green and stated to be revised are exactly the same as the sections in the initial version. I guess there was an error in revising the relevant sections. I recommend that it be reviewed and the information obtained from the suggested current references mentioned in the reviewer comments be added to the discussion section.

“- The relationship between isokinetic H/Q ratio and jumping performance parameters was investigated without using RSDmod. Some recent studies are listed below. The discussion can be rearranged by reviewing these studies.

o Atik, B., Ayberk, B., Özgül, B., & Polat, M. G. (2023). The Association Between Isokinetic Strength and Strength Asymmetry and Jump Performance in Female Volleyball Players. Sport Sciences for Health, 1-8.

o Schons P, Da Rosa RG, Fischer G et al (2019) The relationship between strength asymmetries and jumping performance in professional volleyball players. Sports Biomech. 18(5):515–526.

- One of the evaluations applied in the study is a static measurement while the other is a dynamic task. Therefore, instead of a static measurement, comments can be added about the reflection of dynamic muscle strength (isokinetic) evaluations on RSDmod can be examined. Although this situation is partially mentioned at the end of the discussion, comparative comments can be made in the first parts of the discussion by giving place to case studies from the literature.”

Best Regards

Reviewer #2: All my comments were completed properly. I am satisfied with the corrections.

I would like to thank the authors for their 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

**********

[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.

Is there a Relationship Between Isometric Hamstrings-to-Quadriceps Torque Ratio and Athletes' Plyometric Performance?

PONE-D-23-21774R2

Dear Dr. Babakhani,

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,

Esedullah Akaras

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: Dear Authors,

Thank you for your effort on the revisions of the manuscript. With the revisions, it has become a more understandable and clear manuscript.

Best Regards

Reviewer #2: As stated previously, I have no further comments regarding this manuscript.

In my opinion, manuscrypt can be published in its current form.

**********

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

**********