A reviewer's comments to the author should consist of two parts, e.g. major and specific comments.

  • Major comments (if any) usually relate to the general assessment of the aim and background, methods, results, discussion and conclusions, (e.g. in this paper,  the authors compare the etiology of neuromuscular fatigue following a 100 m sprint, the hypothesis was clearly described as was the introduction,which was well focused on a review of the current literature. The results are clearly presented, although the interpretation of the data is unclear. However, the  interpretation of central fatigue after 100 m should be less affirmative. Even if strong indirect arguments about the cause of central fatigue exist, it  is not enough to present the conclusions about cartier replica reduced cortical replica orologi svizzeri excitability without direct measurements of it).
  • Specific comments (if any) usually relate to minor corrections of the text , (e.g. p1, l2: Please modify "these réplicas de relojes results confirm"; p2, l20: Please change "was" to "were").

The following rating is included on reviewers' scoresheet:

  • Originality/novelty of the manuscript (from 1 to 5 )
  • Scientific importance/impact (from 1 to 5)
  • Adequacy of methods/experiment (from 1 to 5)
  • Quality of data/presentation of results (from 1 to 5)
  • Writing style, readability and organisation (from 1 to 5)
  • Quality of language and grammar (from 1 to 5)

1 - poor, 2 - fair, 3 - average, 4 - good, 5 - excellent