Dear Dr. Khalaji,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 31 2025 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.

• 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,

Rasool Abedanzadeh, 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/file?id=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 (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing [the repository name and/or the DOI/accession number of each dataset OR a direct link to access each database]. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Interesting idea of this study, my recommendations are the following:

Abstract:

I recommend that abbreviations be first listed in parentheses after they have been mentioned descriptively.

Participants- I recommend mentioning the mean age and SD, gender and level of golf practice.

Results: I recommend revising, -Results are that..., possibly The recorded results reveal ..., or The results show that.....

Keyword_ I recommend adding a new word that refers to the sport referred to

Introduction- is well organized in terms of information, relevance and coherence. I recommend, at the end of the section, mentioning the objectives or hypotheses of this study.

Methods: I recommend introducing a new subsection called Study design where the typology of the study and other specific aspects should be mentioned.

I recommend mentioning whether the consent of the subjects to participate in the study was obtained.

I recommend that the subsections in the Methods section be numbered.

Lines 359-368 I recommend moving to the end of the Discussions section

Also, the practical implications of the study and future directions I recommend moving to the Discussion section.

In the conclusions section, only the main conclusions focused on the results should remain. I recommend reviewing the conclusions as they are practical implications.

Reviewer #2: The present study contains a number of shortcomings that are not the responsibility of the reviewer to list and analyse. The quality of the figures is poor and they are not legible, and it is not clear what is shown due to the authors not labelling the y-axis. The values given could be presented more clearly in a table, and the figures are unnecessary. The citations are a mixture of numbers and author+year format without following the journal format even approximately. Significant citations are absent, as evidenced by the example of line 128, which cites Abt et al., 2020, yet does not include the necessary author and year in the references.

Additionally, the exclusion criteria, delineated on line 133 as '(1) any unwillingness to cooperate throughout the study;', call into question the voluntariness of participant involvement, a fundamental requirement stipulated by the Declaration of Helsinki.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript with the title - Comparative Analysis of Mental and Physical Fatigue on Motor Coordination, Visual Search Patterns, Perceived Effort, and Performance Outcomes in Golf Swing Execution

The study is interesting and addresses a topical issue.

Recommendations for improving the content of the manuscript:

Abstract - we recommend including in the Results some relevant results identified in the study, currently only the textual interpretation of the results appears.

Introduction:

• To detail more specifically the novel aspects of the present study in relation to previous studies on the same topic.

• To formulate the hypothesis of the study.

Materials and Methods:

• Study design - To detail the periodization of the study: year, testing periods, stages of the study, etc.

Discussions:

- To add at the end of the Discussions - The practical implications of the study based on the relevant results.

- To delimit the limits of the study.

Conclusions

- We recommend restructuring the conclusions in relation to the main results identified in the study. It is not normal for bibliographical references to appear in the conclusions section. Conclusions refer to the relevant aspects of the present study and do not make connections to previous studies. Sentences where reference is made to previous studies should be moved to the Discussion section.

- Future research directions in accordance with the topic of the study should be mentioned

**********

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:  Badau Adela

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

Comparative Analysis of Mental and Physical Fatigue on Motor Coordination, Visual Search Patterns, Perceived Effort, and Performance Outcomes in Golf Swing Execution

PONE-D-24-57374R1

Dear Dr. Khalaji,

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,

Rasool Abedanzadeh, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have improved the article in accordance with all recommendations. All sections and subsections mentioned in this article, after revision, present complete and comprehensive aspects regarding the topic of the study. The article mentions the ethical aspects in accordance with the specifics of the study, both regarding the subjects and the study itself. The statistics applied are in accordance with the typology of the study.

**********

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:  Adela Badau

**********