All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The manuscript is after revision acceptable for publication.
Please make corrections according to the reviewers' suggestion or write a detailed rebuttal point by point.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
It seems that the files that are uploaded are in the Edit format, meaning that the version that was submitted had all changes on so it was a bit hard to read the tables. Nevertheless I managed to turn that off even though I do not think that it is Ok to submit this kind of files as final version.
The design is clear and easy to follow. What we lack is the frequency and intensity and volume of their weekly engagement in sport
Basically i think that it is a bit of a novel approach and that many relevant factors were included as predictors. i think that the article lacks a physiology parts in discussion. Discussion mainly fokus on repeating the findings with no discussion about the physiology mechanisms of for example B12 and excercise etc...
In general, the English writing is easy to read but there is still some errors in the text. For instance, on line 77, "...were reported as was 2-29% and 3-7%....." in which "as was" might be a typo. The recheck the English grammar throughout the paper.
The paper structure, content and references are finely written.
The hypothesis of the paper is well defined.
The experimental design is clearly described.
The methods is scientific and logical.
The study findings are relevant to the current knowledge and well answered to the study questions.
None
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.