Author response to Editors’ Comment
No. Editors’ / reviewers’
comment
1 In the method, it is not
explained explicitly about the
research design used and how
to collect research data. In this
study, the results obtained
were also not explicitly
explained. The explanation of
the results that were originally
obtained from this research
seems to be integrated with
previous studies in the
discussion section.
2 Most of the contents of the
article explain the general
theory about the definition of
physical activity and the
definition of the immune
response. The article should
focus more on "running", and
how the benefits and risks of
"running" as a small part of
physical activity when done
outdoors in the current
pandemic conditions. It can
also be directly exemplified
how running is considered
beneficial/risky according to
this study. Is it
light/moderate/heavy? What
is the running speed? How
long is the recommended run
for recreational runners? Is
there possible adjustment in
terms of age and gender? Or
maybe there are specific
differences regarding the
benefits of running compared
to other physical activities if
both are done in an outdoor
location?
3 If the researcher also wants to
compare between indoor and
outdoor, then the researcher
can also describe what
percentage of the difference
Response to comment Lines
This paper is an article review Last paragraph of the
that does not present the introduction (page 2)
research methods section,
including not presenting the
research design used and how to
collect research data. However,
the author has added the goal of
the article review in the last
paragraph of the introduction
section and some
recommendations in several
sections.
The general theory of physical Page 4 & 5
activity and immune response
has been reduced in this revision
of this paper.
The benefits of running, including Page 3
running outdoors, have been
described in the section on
indoor activities vs. outdoor
activities.
Page 8 - 9
While the risk of running
outdoors, the author adds in the
form of a table at the end of this
paper.
The authors only tries to describe
why outdoor activities are
favored by runners and how the
limitations of indoor activities
are. The recommendations for
 in benefits and risks between outdoor activities for runners
the two? Which is better? Or have been integrated into the
is it the same? What are the table of recommendations at the
researchers'
end of this article
recommendations for this?
4 It appears starting from the The introduction section has Page 2
introduction section, the been revised so that it no longer
Exposure to Viruses and describes an aerodynamic
Bacteria due to Shared
simulation
Outdoor Activities section, to
the conclusion. The statement
also seems to come from the Another study on the risk of Page 8
same source from beginning droplet exposure between
to end, without any runners when running outdoors
reinforcement or denial from has been added.
other studies. Is there any
difference between the
research conducted by the
researcher and the research
by Blocken B et.al (2020)? It is
recommended that
researchers can enrich with
other research so that it does
not look like repeating existing
research without any new
research contributions
5 Write in VANCOUVER STYLE Noted
6 Use references in the last 10 Noted
years