Physical training of Chinese archers: Geng 2023

The paper states two aims: to describe the physical training methods of Chinese archers and to examine the link between attention and competition results. It reports 24 archers divided into three groups of eight by level of results (excellent, good, average) and, within each level, into an experimental and a control group. The authors conclude that their archery training method improves attentional stability, with significant differences (P<0.01).

The figures meant to support this do not survive a careful reading. In the main table the experimental group at the top level goes from 6.98 to 9.24 on an attentional stability scale that is never described; the middle-level group falls from 9.86 to 8.24 and the lowest-level group from 9.95 to 9.24, yet the text speaks of improvement. The baseline value 6.98±1.39 appears identically in three of the six groups. Some pairs of t and p are incompatible: a t of 3.05 with p = 0.0011, or 2.68 with p = 0.0016, cannot come from groups which, if the eight athletes at each level were split in half, contain four people each. The second table gives mean growth figures with no units or explanation, and there is not a single number for competition score, which is supposed to be the outcome.

The methods section is very vague. The athletes were reportedly chosen by random sampling and the data come from two years of testing at a training centre, but their level, age and discipline are not given, nor how they were allocated to the experimental or control group. The intervention consists of static and dynamic stability exercises with steady breathing, standardised postures and stretching, while the controls carried on with their usual technique; the length, frequency and content of the sessions are not reported. Attentional stability was measured with a questionnaire drawn up after consulting psychologists, whose items and validation are unknown.

A whole section describes an EEG algorithm based on canonical correlation analysis and steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEP), a technique used in brain-computer interfaces. Yet no EEG data appear in the results, and its role is never explained. The statistical analysis is described only as processing in SPSS.

These are less limitations than reasons not to use the paper as evidence. Besides tables that contradict the text, the reference list is a clear warning sign: of its 13 references only three concern archery, while nine deal with farmed ducks and turkeys, dogs given drugs, marine sponges, polymers and other subjects far removed from sport, and share nothing but an author called Archer. This is the typical pattern of mass-produced papers, with citations picked by keyword rather than content. The journal is also flagged in the registry as a venue with doubtful editorial standards.

The title talks about physical function, the aims about physical training and attention, and the discussion proposes a three-phase annual physical training plan that does not follow from any data collected. In the end there is no way of knowing who was measured, with what instrument, and with what effect on shooting.

For anyone who shoots, nothing changes. The idea that training stability of the shot and breathing helps concentration may well be reasonable, but this paper brings no usable data either way. Even the physical training plan in the discussion, with an intensive block of 12 to 16 weeks in winter and spring and reduced volume during the competition season, is the authors' opinion rather than a finding of the study.

The page exists because the paper circulates in databases under a title that promises a lot, and anyone who finds it cited should be able to see what it contains. For the reasons above it supports no claim in the registry.