Table 2.

Paper and work quality metrics.

Metric Type	Item N	Description	Value	Weight
About the content of the paper (7 points)	1	Provides in the abstract an informative and balanced summary of the context of the problem, what was done and what was found	(0,1) (YES/NO)	1
	2	Provides the details about the evaluation process of the system (used data, evaluation metric, protocol and setup)	[0–2]	2
	3	Implements one or more methods that improve the HPE for the problems faced in one or more sport or exercise types	[0–2]	2
	4	Give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations, the multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence	[0–1]	1
	5	Discuss limitations of the study, considering sources of potential bias or imprecision	(0,1) (YES/NO)	1
Other Quality Metrics (4 points)	6	Dataset used in the research is a benchmark or it has been made publicly available	(0,1) (YES/NO)	1
	7	Code is publicly available	(0,0.5) (YES/NO)	0.5
	8	Innovation	[0–0.5]	0.5
	9	Performance of the system: Accuracy and error	Depending on the average and maximum results of other works in relation to the same dataset or implementation, the work will obtain the following score depending on the percentage of quality of results in which it is: between 60–70% (0.5), between 71–85% (1), and 85%+ (1.5). If it is not specified, it is in the group of results under 60%, only qualitative results are provided or the experiment is not clear (0).	1.5
	10	It has any citation out of the author’s self-references (at the time of writing this literature review)	(0,0.5)	0.5