PONE-D-24-20584Important Features of Bench Press Performance in Non-Disabled and Para Athletes: A Scoping ReviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Buhmann,

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.

 All reviewers found merit in your manuscript but have offered suggestions for improvement. Please make sure you address the concerns related to clarity of methods and ensuring the discussion is linked to the original hypothesis.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 09 2024 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,

Jeremy P Loenneke

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. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   "Funding from the Australian Sports Commission"

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

5. 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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: Manuscript Review: PONE-D-24-20584

Manuscript Summary:

The study analyzes factors influencing bench press performance in non-disabled athletes and Para athletes, aiming to provide insights for talent identification and transfer models in weightlifting. The hypothesis posits significant differences in bench press performance determinants between these two groups, influenced by variables such as age, sex, body mass, height, and muscular strength.

Main Findings and Highlights:

- Key determinants of bench press performance in non-disabled athletes include age, sex, body mass, height, and muscular strength.

- For Para athletes, adaptations due to disability, such as balance, stability, and modified technique, are crucial.

- The study discusses the implications for personalized talent identification and training programs in weightlifting for different athlete groups.

Points to Consider:

1) Grammatical or Agreement Errors:

Consistency in Verb Tenses: Review the entire manuscript to ensure consistency in the use of verb tenses.

Subject-Verb Agreement: Ensure proper agreement between subjects and verbs. For instance, on page 40, paragraph 1, line 1, the sentence could be reviewed for consistency.

2) Contrasting Content:

Clarity: Some sections might present contradictory or confusing information. A thorough review and clarification of these points are recommended.

3) Inconsistent Results:

Justification of Discrepancies: Some results appear inconsistent with the initial hypotheses or existing literature. These discrepancies should be clearly reviewed and justified within the manuscript.

4) Argumentative and Scientific Rhetoric Improvements:

Strengthen Arguments: Improve the connection between results and conclusions to ensure a solid and consistent argument.

Technical Language: Use more precise and technical language when describing methods and results to avoid ambiguities.

5) Reader Engagement:

Practical Examples: Incorporate practical examples or case studies to illustrate the applicability of the results in sports practice, making the manuscript more attractive to readers interested in bench press performance.

Hypothesis Confirmation:

Based on the main conclusions, the initial hypothesis does not appear objectively (I suggest it appears, it makes everything clearer!), however, implicitly the implied hypothesis seems partially confirmed. Significant differences were found in bench press performance determinants between non-disabled athletes and Para athletes, particularly regarding age, sex, body mass, height, and muscular strength. However, the study identified areas where results did not fully align with the hypothesis, such as the lack of comprehensive studies across multiple domains and the underrepresentation of female participants.

Conclusion Review:

The conclusion partially addresses the study's objectives. It provides valuable insights into bench press performance characteristics but could more explicitly link results to the study's initial objectives. Emphasizing how the findings contribute to understanding performance determinants and informing talent identification and transfer models in weightlifting would enhance the conclusion.

Recommendations:

Grammar and Agreement: Conduct a thorough grammatical review, focusing on verb tense consistency and subject-verb agreement.

Clarify Content: Address and resolve any contradictory information to ensure clarity.

Justify Inconsistencies: Clearly explain any discrepancies between results and initial hypotheses.

Strengthen Arguments: Enhance the connection between results and conclusions with precise, technical language.

Engage Readers: Use practical examples or case studies to illustrate the real-world applicability of the findings.

Conclusion Enhancement: Directly link the results to the study's objectives, providing a robust synthesis of findings.

By addressing these points, the manuscript will improve in clarity, cohesion, and impact, making it more informative and engaging for readers interested in bench press performance in non-disabled and Para athletes.

Reviewer #2: This scoping review explored variables related to bench press performance (1RM) in both able-bodied and para-athlete populations. Of the 32 studies included, the authors noted body composition and anthropometric variables had the strongest association with bench press performance. The study is well-written and fills an important gap in the literature. I have minor specific comments below.

1) Abstract– If character limits allow, could the authors identify all six of the domains into which features were grouped?

2) Introduction – the introduction is concise, references relevant literature, and provides the rationale for the current study.

3) Methods, exclusion criteria – It seems that excluding those who cannot bench press their body weight (especially for women) artificially limits the ranges of bench press performance for analysis. To me, this could limit valuable information on the predictors of performance if those with lower performance are not included. Could the authors include an analysis without this exclusion criterion (being able to bench press body mass) to see if the analysis changes?

4) Methods, selection criteria – was supportive equipment (e.g. bench shirt or wrist wraps) taken into account during 1RM assessment in the studies included? Please clarify.

5) Table 2 – waist circumference is listed twice (under upper limb and trunk categories) with slightly different correlation coefficients reported from the same study (reference #6). Please clarify.

6) Figure 4 is not brought up in the manuscript until the discussion. In my opinion, a description of this figure should first be mentioned in the results section, with commentary on the implications of this in the discussion.

7) The discussion proposes sound recommendations for future research based on the previous studies reviewed.

Reviewer #3: As per notes attached.

General comments:

Title

Are presented satisfactorily.

Abstract

It is written in a structured way, however, the methodology is written in a very summarized way which ends up making the findings and conclusions of the article.

It would be very important to have more details on how the study was carried out, such as query words, length of time it was consulted, that is, articles published within a certain period of time.

Furthermore, more numerical data should be presented in order to provide an initial overview of the manuscript.

Please confirm that the keywords are listed as descriptors in health sciences.

Introduction

Although the introduction is of a very good length, and initially with a contextualization of Powerlifting, whether conventional or palympic, and more specifically the bench press. However, the introduction cannot move from the general to the specific, that is, the association between performance and anthropometric characteristics associated with health. And on the other hand, the problem is not clear, not allowing us to understand the objectives, much less justify them. It would also be important to present research hypotheses to be answered.

Methods

It should present more clearly the design of the study.

The keywords researcher and the period of time researched are not included in the manuscript. As it turns out, the database and the language, therefore, the methodology is not complete, it would be good to complement it.

Results

Are presented satisfactorily.

Discussion

It should reaffirm the objectives and start discussing the results in the chronological order that appear in the item results.

Please present the limitations of the study.

Conclusion

Are presented satisfactorily.

References

Are presented satisfactorily, review their formatting. Of the 71 references, 37 are current and 34 have been published for more than five years. In this sense, it would be good to check current studies and, if necessary, include them in the manuscript.

Overview

The manuscript presented addresses a relevant research topic.

It would be advisable to do a general review.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes: Felipe J. Aidar

**********

[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: PONE.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-20584v1.doc

Important Features of Bench Press Performance in Non-Disabled and Para Athletes: A Scoping Review

PONE-D-24-20584R1

Dear Dr. Buhmann,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Jeremy P Loenneke

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (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 #2: No

**********