Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents data that describe the physical attributes and athletic skills of women basketball players and women volleyball players. The authors use the data to provide a basis for comparisons with other individual athletes or samples of athletes in the same two sports. The authors measure their data at two different times in a single season and find that there is no statistically significant difference between the data gathered during the preseason (when athletes are ostensibly not in top form) and at the midpoint of the season (when athletes are expected to be in better shape than in the pre-season). 

My only concern is that the sample size is very small. While the authors use a t-distribution for hypothesis testing, it is perhaps worthwhile to use bootstrapped standard errors for hypothesis testing or for robustness testing to the t-test. I understand that the data have already been gathered in 2019 and thus it is difficult to expand the sample used in the current study but having more data would have been better. 

Otherwise, I do not have any other suggestions for how to improve the paper. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your valuable feedback and thoughtful review of our study. Your comments have greatly contributed to the improvement of our research manuscript.

Additionally, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript to ensure that all formatting requirements and referencing guidelines have been met accurately.

We have carefully considered your suggestions and have made the necessary revisions to address the concerns raised. Specifically, we have provided a more comprehensive discussion on the limitations of our study, acknowledging the small sample size and its impact on generalizability. Additionally, we have incorporated your recommendation to formulate more assertive conclusions, dividing them into cognitive considerations and potential applications.

We believe that these changes have strengthened the clarity and impact of our paper. We appreciate your expertise and guidance throughout this process, as it has undoubtedly enhanced the quality of our research.

Once again, thank you for your time and valuable input. We hope that the revised version of our manuscript now meets the standards of the journal and addresses your concerns satisfactorily.

Sincerely,

 

Álvaro Miguel-Ortega       

 

Reviewer 1: This paper presents data that describe the physical attributes and athletic skills of women basketball players and women volleyball players. The authors use the data to provide a basis for comparisons with other individual athletes or samples of athletes in the same two sports. The authors measure their data at two different times in a single season and find that there is no statistically significant difference between the data gathered during the preseason (when athletes are ostensibly not in top form) and at the midpoint of the season (when athletes are expected to be in better shape than in the pre-season). 

My only concern is that the sample size is very small. While the authors use a t-distribution for hypothesis testing, it is perhaps worthwhile to use bootstrapped standard errors for hypothesis testing or for robustness testing to the t-test. I understand that the data have already been gathered in 2019 and thus it is difficult to expand the sample used in the current study but having more data would have been better. 

Otherwise, I do not have any other suggestions for how to improve the paper. 

 

Authors: Thank you very much for your suggestions and appreciations that will improve the quality of our work. As you rightly point out, there are no significant differences but there are some points to highlight. quantitative changes in some tests such as the intermittent endurance test and some of the jumps, as well as the correlations established between the percentage of adipose mass and fat-free mass with the results of some of the performance tests and their logical correspondence between the somatotype of the participants and some of these results. This aspect is included in the conclusions. One limitation is having a small sample.
But as you know it is difficult to obtain the involvement of the teams in a competitive period in order to present real data and results in regular competition situations.Should be noted that it is difficult to obtain larger samples in athletes, as not many have the availability to comply with the training instructions required by the study. Moreover, sampling using a convenient, non-probabilistic sampling procedure may produce results that are not representative of the rest of the population. These limitations may under represent the results and may affect study outcomes. Nevertheless, the purpose of this study is not to transfer information to the general population and  ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY (The role of ecological dynamics in analysing performance in team sports. Vilar L, Araújo D, Davids K, Button C.Sports Med. 2012 Jan 1;42(1):1-10. doi: 10.2165/11596520-000000000-00000).

Reviewer 2 Report

Strengths:

· The topic of the article is an interesting one, the tests are presented in detail, the results are presented clearly.

Weaknesses

· We did not identify the conclusions of the study. We recommend their formulation.

· It would be desirable to have references from the specialized literature of a more recent date (we identified a number of articles from the years 2002-2009).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your valuable feedback and thoughtful review of our study. Your comments have greatly contributed to the improvement of our research manuscript.

Additionally, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript to ensure that all formatting requirements and referencing guidelines have been met accurately.

We have carefully considered your suggestions and have made the necessary revisions to address the concerns raised. Specifically, we have provided a more comprehensive discussion on the limitations of our study, acknowledging the small sample size and its impact on generalizability. Additionally, we have incorporated your recommendation to formulate more assertive conclusions, dividing them into cognitive considerations and potential applications.

We believe that these changes have strengthened the clarity and impact of our paper. We appreciate your expertise and guidance throughout this process, as it has undoubtedly enhanced the quality of our research.

Once again, thank you for your time and valuable input. We hope that the revised version of our manuscript now meets the standards of the journal and addresses your concerns satisfactorily.

Sincerely,

 

Álvaro Miguel-Ortega       

 

Reviewer 2:

Strengths:

• The topic of the article is an interesting one, the tests are presented in detail, the results are presented clearly.

Weaknesses:

• We did not identify the conclusions of the study. We recommend their formulation.
• It would be desirable to have references from the specialized literature of a more recent date (we identified a number of articles from the years 2002-2009).

 

Authors: Thank you very much for your suggestions and appreciations that will improve the quality of our work. We have proceeded to clearly state the conclusions of the work for a better understanding and practical application. (Page 17 in red color)

We have also proceeded to update as far as possible the literature used to support our theoretical basis and our results. Although there are aspects that, as you rightly point out, are not current, they are fully valid and are clearly consolidated with subsequent research, which is why we believe that they are references in the field (Caspersen, C. J.; Powell, K. E.; Christenson, G. M. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public health reports (Washington, D.C.: 1974). 1985, 100, 126–131; Cabañas, M. D.; Esparza, F. Compendio De Cineantropometría. Editorial C.T.O. 2009; Portao, J.; Bescós, R.; Irurtia, A.; Cacciatori, E.; Vallejo, L. Valoración de la grasa corporal en jóvenes físicamente activos: antropometría vs bioimpedancia [Assessment of body fat in physically active young people: anthropometry vs bioimpedance]. Nutricion hospitalaria. 2009, 24, 529–534; Macdougall, I. C.; Lewis, N. P.; Saunders, M. J.; Cochlin, D. L.; Davies, M. E.; Hutton, R. D.; Fox, K. A.; Coles, G. A.; Williams, J. D. Long-term cardiorespiratory effects of amelioration of renal anaemia by erythropoietin. Lancet (London, England). 1990, 335, 489–493; McMahon, S.; Jenkins, D. Factors affecting the rate of phosphocreatine resynthesis following intense exercise. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.). 2002, 32, 761–784; Chaouachi, A.; Leiper, J. B.; Souissi, N.; Coutts, A. J.; Chamari, K. Effects of Ramadan intermittent fasting on sports performance and training: a review. International journal of sports physiology and performance. 2009, 4, 419–434; Green, M. R.; Pivarnik, J. M., Carrier, D. P.; Womack, C. J. Relationship between physiological profiles and on-ice performance of a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I hockey team. Journal of strength and conditioning research. 2006, 20, 43–46) that concerns us, such as some of those mentioned here.

Reviewer 3 Report

First of all, I would start by mentioning the fact that the text of the article is not placed in the template of this scientific journal, so it does not correspond to the editing requirements.

The theoretical substantiation part is poor in concrete information and is based on quite old bibliographic sources, the most recent being from 2011. It is believable that in the last 10 years, enough innovative scientific articles have been published on the studied subject, so that the information in the Introduction should be up-to-date.

Although it was specified in the Research Limits subsection, the small number of participants means that the research itself cannot be validated. I recommend the authors to resume the research on batches of more numerous subjects.

When we refer to anthropometry, we must also take into account the aspects related to height, weight, other diameters and perimeters of some segments of the body and possible links with sports performances. Moreover, what really matters is the sporting result obtained in competitions. Is there any connection between the latter and any anthropometric profile?

The current research has big gaps from my point of view, in the current version it does not come with anything new, nothing that would clarify some interdisciplinarity niches, aspects that could be useful for basketball and volleyball coaches.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your valuable feedback and thoughtful review of our study. Your comments have greatly contributed to the improvement of our research manuscript.

Additionally, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript to ensure that all formatting requirements and referencing guidelines have been met accurately.

We have carefully considered your suggestions and have made the necessary revisions to address the concerns raised. Specifically, we have provided a more comprehensive discussion on the limitations of our study, acknowledging the small sample size and its impact on generalizability. Additionally, we have incorporated your recommendation to formulate more assertive conclusions, dividing them into cognitive considerations and potential applications.

We believe that these changes have strengthened the clarity and impact of our paper. We appreciate your expertise and guidance throughout this process, as it has undoubtedly enhanced the quality of our research.

Once again, thank you for your time and valuable input. We hope that the revised version of our manuscript now meets the standards of the journal and addresses your concerns satisfactorily.

Sincerely,

 

Álvaro Miguel-Ortega       

 

Reviewer 3: First of all, I would start by mentioning the fact that the text of the article is not placed in the template of this scientific journal, so it does not correspond to the editing requirements.

The theoretical substantiation part is poor in concrete information and is based on quite old bibliographic sources, the most recent being from 2011. It is believable that in the last 10 years, enough innovative scientific articles have been published on the studied subject, so that the information in the Introduction should be up-to-date.

Although it was specified in the Research Limits subsection, the small number of participants means that the research itself cannot be validated. I recommend the authors to resume the research on batches of more numerous subjects.

When we refer to anthropometry, we must also take into account the aspects related to height, weight, other diameters and perimeters of some segments of the body and possible links with sports performances. Moreover, what really matters is the sporting result obtained in competitions. Is there any connection between the latter and any anthropometric profile?

The current research has big gaps from my point of view, in the current version it does not come with anything new, nothing that would clarify some interdisciplinarity niches, aspects that could be useful for basketball and volleyball coaches.

 

Authors: Thank you very much for your suggestions and appreciations that will improve the quality of our work. We have proceeded to use the template of the journal to comply correctly with the editing requirements. We have also proceeded to update as much as possible the literature (8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16,17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 61, 62, 87, 88; red color in the text AND IN THE REFERENCES) used to support our theoretical foundation and our results. Although there are aspects that, as you rightly point out, are not current, they are fully valid and are clearly consolidated with subsequent research, which is why we believe that they are references in the field that concerns us.

One limitation of this work is the small sample size.

 

Our aim is to be able to develop the work with larger samples. At an anthropometric level, as can be seen in the results tables, there have been no major changes in any of the measurements obtained, but as we can see in the conclusions, the somatotype derived from the anthropometric measurements does establish a relationship with the results obtained at a performance level in the tests applied. These results can be extrapolated to the competitive level. 

 

This aspect confirms the existing literature that relates these two aspects as a point of interest for the practical application of the control of the body composition of the athletes by the technical team in order to achieve better sports performance and to maintain the health of the participants (Assessment of Body Composition in Athletes: A Narrative Review of Available Methods with Special Reference to Quantitative and Qualitative Bioimpedance Analysis. Campa F, Toselli S, Mazzilli M, Gobbo LA, Coratella G. Nutrients. 2021 May 12;13(5):1620. doi: 10.3390/nu13051620. PMID: 34065984; PMCID: PMC8150618).

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I think that in the current version, the work can be published, the authors have made important improvements.