Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Hadi Nobari 1,2,3,*,
  • Akhilesh Kumar Ramachandran 4 and
  • Elena Mainer-Pardos 8,*
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous Reviewer 4: Fernando Santos

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which explores the Relationship Between Variations Accumulated Workload and change of direction ability in elite young soccer players.

At face value, it appears that the study design was well-thought out and accurately replicates what could conceivably be implemented in practice. In addition, the paper mentioned an important topic on elite young soccer players.. The manuscript is very well written and structured. I have some suggestions for the authors.

Abstract and introduction

  1. For future investigations should be indicated at the end of the abstract as well as in the conclusions section some directions about the results.
  2. The most recent updates should be mentioned in the Introduction, ¿do we have new information about Change of direction ability? Maybe is interesting add the info about Change of direction strategy in the introduction and the overall effects in young soccer players in comparation with the elite.

 

  1. The introduction doesn’t explain the basic concepts used in the paper. Check. Some of these are presented in the methodology section, in terms of how they were measured, however it would have been necessary to clarify their general content in the introduction section.

 

 

 

Methods.

 

  1. Where is the information about ethical committee?
  2. The elite soccer players were selected by convenience sampling.
  3. Can you show the information about the statistical power analyses? Maybe you can use GPower or other software. I have certain doubts about the sample size.
  4. Please, elucidate in the procedure and maybe create a timeline (figure) with the process that you follow during the procedure.

 

  1. And I also wondered what would have happened if you include the weight as covariate in the study. What do you think? Is relevant for the presents research.

 

  1. Any information of table 1. Can you add in the text? The table is repetitive and not necessary. Can you add the Confidence interval upper and lower?

 

 

Results.

 

 

  1. Please check all documents and put only two decimals in all the results.

 

  1. Check the significant results in the document and add * or ** as appropriate. In the note under the table and also in the figures

 

  1. Can you add the upper and down confident intervals?

 

 

Discussion.

 

  1. Discussions is appropriate but so short for the results that you obtained. Please, referring to the results of other studies. In addition, the theoretical and practical implications of the research are vaguely mentioned. It necessary improve it.

References

  1. Check all the information

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your kind and valuable comments. All changes in the manuscript were highlighted in yellow.

Kind regards,

The authors

 

Abstract and introduction

1. For future investigations should be indicated at the end of the abstract as well as in the conclusions section some directions about the results.

Answer: Dear reviewer, thank you for the appreciation.

2. The most recent updates should be mentioned in the Introduction, ¿do we have new information about Change of direction ability? Maybe is interesting add the info about Change of direction strategy in the introduction and the overall effects in young soccer players in comparation with the elite.

Answer: Thank you for the suggestion, changes made.

3. The introduction doesn’t explain the basic concepts used in the paper. Check. Some of these are presented in the methodology section, in terms of how they were measured, however it would have been necessary to clarify their general content in the introduction section.

Answer: Thank you for the suggestion, changes made.

Methods.

4. Where is the information about ethical committee?

Answer: We have added

5. The elite soccer players were selected by convenience sampling.

Answer: Dear reviewer, yes, we have added this information.

6. Can you show the information about the statistical power analyses? Maybe you can use GPower or other software. I have certain doubts about the sample size.

Answer: We have added

7. Please, elucidate in the procedure and maybe create a timeline (figure) with the process that you follow during the procedure.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. We have included a timeline like figure 2.

8. And I also wondered what would have happened if you include the weight as covariate in the study. What do you think? Is relevant for the presents research.

Answer: Dear reviewer, thank you for your opinion. There is no place for covariance in correlation and regression. However, as you can see from the analysis and purpose of the study. Considering the height peak velocity is almost an influential variable performed as a covariate. This variable is obtained from weight and anthropometric data.

9. Any information of table 1. Can you add in the text? The table is repetitive and not necessary. Can you add the Confidence interval upper and lower?

 Answer: We have deleted table 1 and this information has been added in the text.

Results.

10. Please check all documents and put only two decimals in all the results.

 Answer: Changed

11. Check the significant results in the document and add * or ** as appropriate. In the note under the table and also in the figures

Answer: Changed

12. Can you add the upper and down confident intervals?

Answer: We have added in the tables

Discussion.

13. Discussions is appropriate but so short for the results that you obtained. Please, referring to the results of other studies. In addition, the theoretical and practical implications of the research are vaguely mentioned. It necessary improve it.

Answer: Dear Reviewer, thanks a lot for your feedback. We have added few more details to the Discussion section. We would request you to consider these changes.

References

13. Check all the information

Answer: Done

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript scope is interesting. However there some aspects to improve.

The introduction in very physiological. Few is reported about training load and it's variables. Highlighting that some variables related to training load are observed it is important to present more information about it in the introduction. Please see: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/3906.

Methods: Regarding workload, everything is about RPE. Upon that, the variables are all related. Total distance, accelerations and decelerations, average maximal and mean velocity, are other variables. This manuscript do not consider TL as a construct. But refers to training load as possibly measured by a single based variable.

Results: Ok.

Discussion: L.268: Few is presented comparing different methods to assess PHV. It is important to present the strengths and weaknesses to support the choice of the used method. 

Regarding the manuscript, the authors selected few variables. Nowadays, TL studies require at least inertial devices to be published in journals such as Sustainability. The concept of training load is minimized by the authors. Leading to possible misunderstandings.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your kind and valuable comments. All changes in the manuscript were highlighted in yellow.

Kind regards,

The authors

The introduction in very physiological. Few is reported about training load and it's variables. Highlighting that some variables related to training load are observed it is important to present more information about it in the introduction. Please see:https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/3906.

Answer: Thanks for the suggestion. We have improved this section.

Methods: Regarding workload, everything is about RPE. Upon that, the variables are all related. Total distance, accelerations and decelerations, average maximal and mean velocity, are other variables. This manuscript do not consider TL as a construct. But refers to training load as possibly measured by a single based variable.

Answer: You are right that all of this comes from RPE, however these have different formulas that are applied in different studies to reach a good conclusion as to which one might be the more appropriate variable. On the other hand, there is a TL in this study, which has been calculated and presented under the name of AWL. Finally, we completely agree with you about the external load variables, and this was added due to the lack of measurement of these variables in the constraints section.

Discussion: L.268: Few is presented comparing different methods to assess PHV. It is important to present the strengths and weaknesses to support the choice of the used method. 

Answer: Dear Reviewer, we have provided more justification for the use of the current PHV method in our study. We would request you to consider these additions.

Regarding the manuscript, the authors selected few variables. Nowadays, TL studies require at least inertial devices to be published in journals such as Sustainability. The concept of training load is minimized by the authors. Leading to possible misunderstandings.

Answer: We tried to correct these cases and, as mentioned above, stated this as a limitation of the study and suggested that it be included in future studies.

Reviewer 3 Report

The results must be significantly improved - more oriented on practice results, not only confusing tables. In results need to be included also the workloads in each intensity, not only total loads. In all tables, it is necessary to include the Units.

In this article there are so many abbreviations, which is difficult to read and understand the Article. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your kind and valuable comments. All changes in the manuscript were highlighted in yellow.

Kind regards,

The authors

The results must be significantly improved - more oriented on practice results, not only confusing tables In all tables, it is necessary to include the Units.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. We have improved results sections. In addition, we have included the Units in all tables.

In this article there are so many abbreviations, which is difficult to read and understand the Article. 

Answer: Thank you for your comment. We have reduced the number of abbreviations.

Reviewer 4 Report

First of all, congratulations to the authors for their work. The work is written in a clear and objective way. The research problem is duly exposed, as well as justified. The methodology is well described. The results are discussed and appropriate conclusions are drawn. I will, however, make some suggestions for improvement:
Abstract - Add the instruments for the collection, as well as the data analysis performed.
Table 1 - The information that makes the legend the content of the table (placed in the title of the table), I suggest that it be placed below it.
I think it's important to put a picture to illustrate the change of direction test
Line 150 - how the RPE was registered
Line 156 - put the formulas
Table 3 - Must be adjusted to the document's margins. I suggest placing the qualitative information of the effect size in the table
Figure 1- place the regression values on the graph.

Author Response

 Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your kind and valuable comments. All changes in the manuscript were highlighted in yellow.

Kind regards,

The authors

Abstract - Add the instruments for the collection, as well as the data analysis performed.

Answer: Thanks for your comment We have improved this section.


Table 1 - The information that makes the legend the content of the table (placed in the title of the table), I suggest that it be placed below it.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. Finally, this table have been deleted and we have included this information in the text.


I think it's important to put a picture to illustrate the change of direction test

Answer: We have included figure 1 illustrating this test.


Line 150 - how the RPE was registered

Answer: We have added it in the manuscript.


Line 156 - put the formulas

Answer: Dear reviewer, this formula has added in the method section of manuscript. 

 

Table 3 - Must be adjusted to the document's margins. I suggest placing the qualitative information of the effect size in the table

Answer: Added and modified.


Figure 1- place the regression values on the graph.

Answer: We have added these values on the figure 3. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made a substantial effort to improve the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors don´t accept my recommandations and the Article is not 

appropriate for publication.