Influence of Two Different Competition Models on Physical Performance in Under-13 Basketball Players: Analysis Considering Maturity Timing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done an excellent job, but some comments are necessary before the study can be accepted for publication:

 

Major comment: The optimal experimental design in this context would have been a cross-sectional design, which would have limited the problems caused by excessive player fatigue and eliminated the lack of training of the players with the modified rules. I therefore ask the authors to include this in the limitations section of the study.

Mionor comments:

Introduction: Lines 51 and 78: An interesting aspect that should be mentioned is the difference in muscle-tendon development and the different levels of stiffness related to the performance of young basketball players during the maturation process  that may characterise the level of specific sports performance implying the need for adjustments in the level of play that take into account the maturation process. 10.3390/ijerph192417017.  This should be mentioned in the text on lines 51 and 78.

Methods: Line 142 to 146. Some more information on the Real Track system is important, because what is mentioned in the text does not give an understanding of the system setting: e.g. were there fixed antennas? were the pitches outdoors? 

DIscussions: 

Lines 260 to 264. The author speculates: "In this sense, these modifying rules will facilitate efficiency in the game, allowing for greater equality, which is key to making competition a formative tool [44]. An adequate competition structure would provoke an ideal environment for a great teaching-learning process [58]. Thus, the modified rules competitions promote children’s participation, the self-efficacy perception increases, and increased of the variability of action [46,47]."

However, the authors should add that another option could be to include competitions with different rules within the same tournament in order to increase the level of aggregation between late and on time. 

 

 

Author Response

The authors have done an excellent job, but some comments are necessary before the study can be accepted for publication:

Major comment: The optimal experimental design in this context would have been a cross-sectional design, which would have limited the problems caused by excessive player fatigue and eliminated the lack of training of the players with the modified rules. I therefore ask the authors to include this in the limitations section of the study.

We have included in limitations section.

 

Mionor comments:

Introduction: Lines 51 and 78: An interesting aspect that should be mentioned is the difference in muscle-tendon development and the different levels of stiffness related to the performance of young basketball players during the maturation process that may characterise the level of specific sports performance implying the need for adjustments in the level of play that take into account the maturation process. 10.3390/ijerph192417017.  This should be mentioned in the text on lines 51 and 78.

This aspect we included in line 78. In the line 51 we think it shouldn’t include this comment, because it is not applicable in this part of the introduction. 

Methods: Line 142 to 146. Some more information on the Real Track system is important, because what is mentioned in the text does not give an understanding of the system setting: e.g. were there fixed antennas? were the pitches outdoors? 

We added the information about the pitches. The antennas we are mentioned with the expression “a local positioning system (LPS)”.

 

 

 

 

Discussions: 

Lines 260 to 264. The author speculates: "In this sense, these modifying rules will facilitate efficiency in the game, allowing for greater equality, which is key to making competition a formative tool [44]. An adequate competition structure would provoke an ideal environment for a great teaching-learning process [58]. Thus, the modified rules competitions promote children’s participation, the self-efficacy perception increases, and increased of the variability of action [46,47]."

However, the authors should add that another option could be to include competitions with different rules within the same tournament in order to increase the level of aggregation between late and on time. 

We think it is an interesting idea, but this study design did not permit to mixing of both competitions. Our aim is to compare the standard rules with a possible different competition.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend highlighting the main hypothesis, secondary hypotheses. I recommend emphasizing in the conclusions the validation or invalidation of the pursued hypotheses.

Author Response

I recommend highlighting the main hypothesis, secondary hypotheses. I recommend emphasizing in the conclusions the validation or invalidation of the pursued hypotheses.

We added a paragraph with hypothesis before the aims of the study. We have modified the conclusion discussion to the hypothesis mentioned.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your work for review. I have the following comments:

1.      L45 – add keyword ‘’ basketball’’

2.      L49 ‘’ [4,14,15,18,24]’’  - Citations should start with 1 and go chronologically.

3.      L49 ‘’ [4,14,15,18,24]’’  - Quotes should not be in bold.

4.      In addition, to support the sentence, a maximum of 3 quotes is enough, there is no need to insert 5 and more. Correct throughout the text.

5.      L75 – ‘’ In this sense,’’ -  avoid such phrases.

6.      L95 - add hypothesis.

7.      L98 – ‘’ male’’ - Justify why it was decided to study only men.

8.      L98 – ‘’ Forty-one’’  - why such a number ? add sample size calculations. And L103-L104 – ‘’ Thereby, thirty-seven players were included in the present study (n = 37). The 103 sample size of this study is the usual size for this type of study [37]’’ - quote to Cago, C.; Lorenzo, A.; Cárdenas, D.; Alarcón, F.; Ureña, A.; Gimenez-Fuentes, F.; Gómez, M.A. Fradua L.; Sainz de Baranda, P.; 396 Ibañez, S.; Verdu, I.; Olmedilla, A.; Torres, G.; Ortega, E. 2020. La creación de conocimiento en los deportes de equipo. Sobre el 397 tamaño de la muestra y la generalización de los resultados. JUMP 2020 1, 7-8

9.      I do not accept this explanation. First of all, the authors submitted the work to the English-language journal ''Appl. Sci. ''. Recipients will also be English-speaking. As a reviewer, it also makes it difficult for me to verify the sample size given by the authors. I consider this an error. Remove this reference and provide relative sample size calculations.

10.   Please add a graphic diagram for conducting the study. It will make it much easier to understand.

11.   L106 – ‘’ approved by the institutional research ethics of University of Murcia’’  - Add date and bioethics committee approval number.

12.   L110 – ‘’ under-14 players’’ - Shouldn't it be 13?

13.   L118-119 - add quotes.

14.   L128 – ‘’ chronological age’’ - what do the authors have in mind ?

15.   L129-130 – ‘’ The height of the biological parents of each player were self-reported and adjusted for over-estimation using the previously established equations’’ - Firstly, cite these equations are not easy to find directly in the citation. Cite this equation.

16.   L129- ‘’ self-reported’’ b- why did the authors opt for a self- reported instead of simply examining growth?

17.   L141 – ‘’ 2.3 Materials’’  - more this paragraph points to methods. Change the heading.

18.   L142-145 - Describe the operation of this device, more information about it.

19.   L146 – ‘’ previous basketball study [42].’’  - validation will not be verified again due to the foreign language text.

20.   L155 – ‘’ respectively [43].’’  - Same situation, reference to non-English literature. Replace with English-language.

21.   L159 – ‘’ Table 1 shows the mean values and standard deviations of the kinematic variables for the offence positional phase’’ -  Change the description of the results so that the first sentence is not a bespoke reference to the table.

22.   L176  - Table titles should be above the tables. Figure titles should be under figures. Correct throughout the text.

23.   L175 - Under the tables, add a description of the abbreviations used.

24.   L174 - The tables use the descriptions ''Early'' and ''On Time to Late'' while in the main text they appear ''Early Group Vs On time to Late Group''. This should be standardized.

25.   Results - Standardize numerical values everywhere. Once authors provide numerical values at the first decimal place, another time at the second, and somewhere else at the third. Ensure the same everywhere.

26.   Figure 2. – 4 - Add descriptions of the axes, and improve the quality of the figures they are poorly readable.

27.   L211-212 – ‘’ Mean values and standard deviation of kinematics variables, according to maturating timing and tournament, during fast-break phases.’’ - Remove italics.

28.   L214 – ‘’ From a general view, there were no significant differences in kinematic variables between the tournaments, neither in positional offence phases nor in fast breaks’’ -  It is recommended that discussions begin with statistics that came out positively or with a description of the achievement of the goal, information on the verification of hypotheses.

29.   L271-280 - Unify the interlines.

30.   L287 – ‘’ It can be concluded that in this study:’’  - it can be removed.

31.   L288-300 - In their conclusions, the authors repeated the results too much. They should be reworded.

32.   L301 – ‘’ 6. Patents’’ - If there were no patents remove the header.

33.   L309 – ‘’ Informed Consent Statement:’’ - Repeat the bioethics committee approval information with the approval number.

34.   References Authors' self citations:

·        Ricardo André Birrento Aguiar  - 9

·        Jorge Arede - 1-5

·        Nuno Leite - 1-5, 38

·        Francisco Javier Garcia Angulo -29, 48

·        José Pino - 30,51

·        Enrique Ortega Toro 9, 16, 29, 37, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50

This gives a total of 25 different works in which at least one of the authors quoted himself. This gives 42% of all references. In my opinion, this is unacceptable.  I understand that the authors are specialists in their field but self-citations should be limited to a maximum of 10% of the quotes and only the most necessary should remain.

Author Response

Thank you for submitting your work for review. I have the following comments:

1. L45 – add keyword ‘’ basketball’’

We cannot add this word because is in the title.

2. L49 ‘’ [4,14,15,18,24]’’ - Citations should start with 1 and go chronologically.

We rearrange all citation.

3. L49 ‘’ [4,14,15,18,24]’’ - Quotes should not be in bold.

We put off the bold in all quotes.

 

4. In addition, to support the sentence, a maximum of 3 quotes is enough, there is no need to insert 5 and more. Correct throughout the text.

We have modified. Maximum 3 quotes by sentence. 

5. L75 – ‘’ In this sense,’’ - avoid such phrases.

We changed all this expression.

6. L95 - add hypothesis.

We added hypothesis (Line 96-99)

7. L98 – ‘’ male’’ - Justify why it was decided to study only men.

The basketball federation needed to change the rules of under-13 competition. This competition only exist in boys because has not girls teams enough.

8. L98 – ‘’ Forty-one’’ - why such a number? add sample size calculations. And L103-L104 – ‘’ Thereby, thirty-seven players were included in the present study (n = 37). The 103 sample size of this study is the usual size for this type of study [37]’’ - quote to Cago, C.; Lorenzo, A.; Cárdenas, D.; Alarcón, F.; Ureña, A.; Gimenez-Fuentes, F.; Gómez, M.A. Fradua L.; Sainz de Baranda, P.; 396 Ibañez, S.; Verdu, I.; Olmedilla, A.; Torres, G.; Ortega, E. 2020. La creación de conocimiento en los deportes de equipo. Sobre el 397 tamaño de la muestra y la generalización de los resultados. JUMP 2020 1, 7-8

I do not accept this explanation. First of all, the authors submitted the work to the English-language journal ''Appl. Sci. ''. Recipients will also be English-speaking. As a reviewer, it also makes it difficult for me to verify the sample size given by the authors. I consider this an error. Remove this reference and provide relative sample size calculations.

We have corrected all this mistakes.

9. Please add a graphic diagram for conducting the study. It will make it much easier to understand.

We had a graphic with the principal modifying rules.

10. L106 – ‘’ approved by the institutional research ethics of University of Murcia’’ - Add date and bioethics committee approval number.

We have added this information.

11. L110 – ‘’ under-14 players’’ - Shouldn't it be 13?

Yes, but the under-13 competitions play with under-14 rules.

12. L118-119 - add quotes.

We cannot add quotes for this sentence.

13. L128 – ‘’ chronological age’’ - what do the authors have in mind?

We changed the expression for birth date.

14. L129-130 – ‘’ The height of the biological parents of each player were self-reported and adjusted for over-estimation using the previously established equations’’ - Firstly, cite these equations are not easy to find directly in the citation. Cite this equation.

We have added the citation.

 

15. L129- ‘’ self-reported’’ b- why did the authors opt for a self- reported instead of simply examining growth?

We don’t have to examine the growing but biological age and maturity state.

16. L141 – ‘’ 2.3 Materials’’ - more this paragraph points to methods. Change the heading.

We have changed the heading.

17. L142-145 - Describe the operation of this device, more information about it.

We added more information.

18. L146 – ‘’ previous basketball study [42].’’ - validation will not be verified again due to the foreign language text.

We changed the citation.

19. L155 – ‘’ respectively [43].’’ - Same situation, reference to non-English literature. Replace with English-language.

We have changed the citation.

20. L159 – ‘’ Table 1 shows the mean values and standard deviations of the kinematic variables for the offence positional phase’’ - Change the description of the results so that the first sentence is not a bespoke reference to the table.

 We have changed.

21. L176 - Table titles should be above the tables. Figure titles should be under figures. Correct throughout the text.

We have changed.

22. L175 - Under the tables, add a description of the abbreviations used.

We have added.

23. L174 - The tables use the descriptions ''Early'' and ''On Time to Late'' while in the main text they appear ''Early Group Vs On time to Late Group''. This should be standardized.

We have standardised. 

24. Results - Standardize numerical values everywhere. Once authors provide numerical values at the first decimal place, another time at the second, and somewhere else at the third. Ensure the same everywhere.

We have standardised. 

25. Figure 2. – 4 - Add descriptions of the axes, and improve the quality of the figures they are poorly readable.

We have added descriptions and improve the quality of figures.

26. L211-212 – ‘’ Mean values and standard deviation of kinematics variables, according to maturating timing and tournament, during fast-break phases.’’ - Remove italics.

We have removed. 

27. L214 – ‘’ From a general view, there were no significant differences in kinematic variables between the tournaments, neither in positional offence phases nor in fast breaks’’ - It is recommended that discussions begin with statistics that came out positively or with a description of the achievement of the goal, information on the verification of hypotheses.

We have changed. 

28. L271-280 - Unify the interlines.

We have unified.

29. L287 – ‘’ It can be concluded that in this study:’’ - it can be removed.

We have removed.

30. L288-300 - In their conclusions, the authors repeated the results too much. They should be reworded.

In conclusion we have two types of conclusions. The results about general perspective and the conclusion about maturity level. We believe this conclusion answer to the aims previous.   

32. L301 – ‘’ 6. Patents’’ - If there were no patents remove the header.

We have removed.

33. L309 – ‘’ Informed Consent Statement:’’ - Repeat the bioethics committee approval information with the approval number.

We added this information.

34. References Authors' self citations:

• Ricardo André Birrento Aguiar - 9
• Jorge Arede - 1-5
• Nuno Leite - 1-5, 38
• Francisco Javier Garcia Angulo -29, 48
• José Pino - 30,51
• Enrique Ortega Toro 9, 16, 29, 37, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50

This gives a total of 25 different works in which at least one of the authors quoted himself. This gives 42% of all references. In my opinion, this is unacceptable.  I understand that the authors are specialists in their field but self-citations should be limited to a maximum of 10% of the quotes and only the most necessary should remain.

We have reduced the self-citation.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

The manuscript discusses aspects of basketball in the context of children and adolescents. There are some exciting ideas and suggestions, but several points deserve critical analysis, including questions and suggestions for improvement.

1 - Include clear and specific citations about the topic studied. Justify in the text if it is not possible.

2 - Add concrete examples of changes to the rules and their impact to make the sport more attractive.

3 - Deepen the importance of scientific validation and the potential consequences that adaptations to rules provide.

4 - Authors should discuss the challenges and benefits of using biological age instead of chronological age or provide evidence of the effectiveness of competitions based on biological age.

 

Methodology

1 - What is the impact of the exclusion of 4 participants, and what were the reasons for the exclusions?

2 - Detail how the tracking system used works. Cite the instrument validation reference.

3 - Detail the reasons for choosing the statistical tests used.

 

Results

The graphs and tables are adequate, and the text satisfactorily describes the results.

 

Discussion

1 - Discuss the meaning of trends and differences in performance and the practical implications mentioned.

2 - Explain the reasons for the contradictions mentioned above and whether methodological factors can explain the results of this study.

3 - Deepen the discussion on how maturation can affect performance and how rule modifications can be adapted to meet the needs of players at different stages of development.

4 - Discuss how these limitations may have influenced the results and how they can be addressed in future research.

5 - It would be interesting if the authors could discuss how modifications can be implemented in the game rules.

 

Conclusions

The current version of concussion looks like a summary of the results. I suggest the authors rewrite the topic to highlight the study's conclusions.

Author Response

Introduction

The manuscript discusses aspects of basketball in the context of children and adolescents. There are some exciting ideas and suggestions, but several points deserve critical analysis, including questions and suggestions for improvement.

1 - Include clear and specific citations about the topic studied. Justify in the text if it is not possible.

We restructured specific citations in full document.  

2 - Add concrete examples of changes to the rules and their impact to make the sport more attractive.

We have explained on discussion line 240-242.

3 - Deepen the importance of scientific validation and the potential consequences that adaptations to rules provide.

We have added information on the lines 240-242

4 - Authors should discuss the challenges and benefits of using biological age instead of chronological age or provide evidence of the effectiveness of competitions based on biological age.

 We have added information on the lines 292-297

Methodology

1 - What is the impact of the exclusion of 4 participants, and what were the reasons for the exclusions?

The players do not conclude the study because injured. 

2 - Detail how the tracking system used works. Cite the instrument validation reference.

We added more information in this section and references were modified.

3 - Detail the reasons for choosing the statistical tests used.

We used this statistical test because permit to combine 2 dependent variables (2 different tournaments, with 1 independent variable (biological age).

 

 

 

 

Results

The graphs and tables are adequate, and the text satisfactorily describes the results.

Ok.

 

Discussion

1 - Discuss the meaning of trends and differences in performance and the practical implications mentioned.

We have added this information on first discussion paragraph.

2 - Explain the reasons for the contradictions mentioned above and whether methodological factors can explain the results of this study.

We have added this information in limitation section.

3 - Deepen the discussion on how maturation can affect performance and how rule modifications can be adapted to meet the needs of players at different stages of development.

We have deepened on the end of discussion.

 

4 - Discuss how these limitations may have influenced the results and how they can be addressed in future research.

We have added more information. 

5 - It would be interesting if the authors could discuss how modifications can be implemented in the game rules.

We have modified and explained in end of discussion.

Conclusions

The current version of concussion looks like a summary of the results. I suggest the authors rewrite the topic to highlight the study's conclusions.

We have rewritten the conclusion.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The authors mostly responded correctly to my comments. However, the following issues remain to be resolved.

1.      Sample size calculations are missing. Add the calculation of the sample size.

2.      L210-214 - remove unnecessary bold.

3.      L332 – ‘’ FEB = FEB Tournament; Modified = Modified Tournament.’’ - remove unnecessary bold.

4.      Re-evaluation for self-citations:

·  Jorge Arede - 18

·  Nuno Leite - 18

·  Francisco Javier Garcia Angulo -5,6,10

·  José Pino – 20,38

·  Enrique Ortega Toro – 5,6,10,11,39

There are 8 self-citations out of 41 works which is 20%. The authors have significantly reduced the number of self-citations from 41% to 20%, but this still does not fully flesh out my previous point.

Author Response

The authors mostly responded correctly to my comments. However, the following issues remain to be resolved.

1. Sample size calculations are missing. Add the calculation of the sample size.

We have added Sample Size and Sample Size calculation on Materials and Methods.

2. L210-214 - remove unnecessary bold.

We removed full unnecessary bold.

3. L332 – ‘’ FEB = FEB Tournament; Modified = Modified Tournament.’’ - remove unnecessary bold.

We removed full unnecessary bold.

4. Re-evaluation for self-citations:

• Jorge Arede - 18
• Nuno Leite - 18
• Francisco Javier Garcia Angulo -5,6,10
• José Pino – 20,38
• Enrique Ortega Toro – 5,6,10,11,39

There are 8 self-citations out of 41 works which is 20%. The authors have significantly reduced the number of self-citations from 41% to 20%, but this still does not fully flesh out my previous point.

We have reduced 4 self-citations.

Thank you

The authors