The Relationship Between Mood, Competitive Anxiety, and Injuries: A Longitudinal Analysis in High-Performance Female Volleyball Players

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a longitudinal observational study examining the relationship between psychological states—specifically mood and competitive anxiety—and injury occurrence among elite female volleyball players during a competitive season. Using standardized tools (POMS and CSAI-2), the study tracks emotional states before 16 league matches and correlates them with injury data collected throughout the season. While no statistically significant relationship was found between injury occurrence and psychological scores, injured players showed a tendency toward higher cognitive anxiety and lower self-confidence. Overall, athletes maintained a positive mood profile throughout the season, with improvements observed as the season progressed.

Major Comments and Suggestions

1. The small sample size (n=21) is a limiting factor and might explain the lack of statistically significant results.
2. Suggestion: Add a post-hoc power analysis or elaborate more clearly on how the sample size might have limited detection of meaningful effects.
3. External factors such as match difficulty, player position, training load, sleep, or nutrition are not considered.
4. Suggestion: At minimum, discuss these potential confounders and how they may have influenced results.
5. While trends in anxiety and self-confidence are mentioned, the mechanisms by which these may predispose athletes to injury are not thoroughly explored.
6. Suggestion: Integrate relevant sports psychology theories, such as the stress-injury model or attentional control theory.
7. Figures showing psychological score trends (e.g., POMS, CSAI-2) are useful but lack clarity.
1. Suggestion: Use standardized y-axes across graphs, improve label readability, and consider adding standard deviations or error bars to highlight group variability.
8. The discussion could be strengthened by highlighting how coaches or sports psychologists could apply these findings, even in the absence of statistical significance.
1. For instance, regular psychological monitoring might help anticipate injury risk based on trends in cognitive anxiety.
9. The term “injury” should be more precisely defined (e.g., severity, time-loss, recurrence).
10. Rephrase slightly awkward phrases, such as “injury occurrence did not cause a significant influence” → “injury occurrence was not significantly influenced.”
11. Clarify if injuries were self-reported or diagnosed by medical staff.
12. Reference formatting should be checked for consistency.
13. Were injury types and locations recorded? Could this data offer further insight into psychophysiological vulnerabilities?
14. Did the timing of injuries (early vs. late season) correlate with shifts in mood or anxiety?
15. Are there plans to replicate this study with a larger cohort or across multiple teams to improve statistical power?
16. Were athletes aware of their psychological scores, and could this awareness have influenced their performance or stress levels?
17. Would including objective physiological measures (e.g., heart rate variability) alongside psychological tools add value?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• The manuscript is well-written and clearly structured.
• Minor grammatical issues (e.g., verb tense consistency, article usage) appear occasionally but do not hinder comprehension.
• A light editorial review by a native English speaker would improve flow and polish.

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract outlines the general purpose of the study, and the main conclusions are mentioned.
It remains too general and lacks concrete numerical results. MDPI encourages abstracts to follow a clear Background–Methods–Results–Conclusion structure. Including key data points and clarifying the main outcomes would improve its scientific value.

The introduction frames a relevant topic and references recent international literature. The rationale of the study is evident.
The research questions or objectives are not highlighted clearly. It is recommended to present them in a separate paragraph, possibly in a numbered list. The identification of the research gap could also be made more explicit.

The methodology section includes ethical approval and basic information on participants and procedures.
Some aspects lack detail—particularly regarding the validation of instruments and the exact statistical techniques used. Adding a subheading like 2.4. Statistical Analysis would improve clarity. Descriptive statistics (mean age, standard deviation, gender distribution) should be more explicitly reported.

Tables are well-organized and provide necessary statistical outcomes, including p-values. The narrative is too reliant on tables, with limited textual interpretation. Readers should be able to understand the key findings without constantly referring to tables. Including effect sizes (e.g., Cohen’s d, η²) would add value and help contextualize statistical significance. It should also be clearer which results answer which research questions.

The authors attempt to contextualize their findings within the existing literature and mention practical implications.
The discussion is somewhat superficial. A more thorough comparison with prior studies is needed, and several claims lack references. The limitations section is particularly underdeveloped—this should be a distinct paragraph explaining methodological limitations and their potential impact on interpretation.

The manuscript concludes with general implications and practical relevance. The conclusion is too broad. It should clearly state the main findings and directly link them to the research questions. Including concise, evidence-based takeaway messages would strengthen the section and enhance the paper’s impact.

This manuscript addresses a timely and important topic with potential relevance for both research and practice. The paper is well-intentioned and structurally aligned with Applied Sciences standards, but several aspects need further refinement.

The manuscript is generally understandable, and the authors demonstrate a solid attempt to present their ideas in English. However, the text requires moderate language editing to meet the linguistic and stylistic standards expected in Applied Sciences.

Several phrases and ideas are repeated throughout the manuscript (e.g., variations of “the aim of this study was to examine…”), which weakens the overall clarity and flow.
Some terms are overly general or not the most appropriate in academic English. For instance, words like “characteristics” or “aspects” are used vaguely in some contexts and could be replaced with more precise expressions.

Long and complex sentences occasionally obscure the meaning. In several places, it is difficult to identify the grammatical subject or to follow the intended logic due to convoluted phrasing.

Incorrect or awkward use of prepositions (e.g., “on the basis of” vs. “based on”)

Errors in subject–verb agreement (e.g., “data was” instead of “data were”)

Missing or inconsistent use of articles (e.g., “Results showed…” instead of “The results showed…”)

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a valuable longitudinal analysis of the relationship between mood, competitive anxiety, and injuries in high-performance female volleyball players. The study design is robust, and the findings contribute to the understanding of psychological factors in injury prevention. However, several substantive revisions are required to enhance clarity, methodological rigor, and interpretation of results. Below are the key issues that need addressing:

1. The small sample size (n=21) raises concerns about statistical power and generalizability. The authors should justify the sample size and discuss potential biases or limitations arising from it.
2. Lines 36-38: For the latest descriptions of sports injuries, to provide more effective evidence, the authors may consider referring to the following updated relevant studies:

New insights optimize landing strategies to reduce lower limb injury risk (https://doi.org/10.34133/cbsystems.0126).

3. The criteria for defining injuries (10 days off) should be explicitly linked to existing literature or standards to ensure consistency and comparability with other studies.
4. The manuscript frequently mentions trends without statistical significance (such as differences between injured and non-injured players). The authors should clarify whether these trends hold any practical significance or are merely observational.
5. The lack of control for external variables (e.g., training load, match importance) is a limitation. The authors should acknowledge this and discuss how these factors might influence the results.
6. Tables and figures (e.g., Table 1, Figure 1) are dense and difficult to interpret. Simplifying or reorganizing these would improve readability.
7. The claim of bidirectional relationships between mood and anxiety needs stronger empirical support. The authors should elaborate on the mechanisms or provide additional references.
8. The practical recommendations are vague. The authors should specify actionable strategies for coaches or athletes based on the findings.
9. The limitations section should address the potential impact of self-report biases and the lack of physiological data (e.g., cortisol levels) to complement psychological measures.

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thank you for addressing the comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful and thorough review of our manuscript. We truly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to evaluating our work.

Alejo

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the revised manuscript and the authors’ detailed responses to the reviewers' comments.

The revised version demonstrates that the authors have made substantial and appropriate changes in response to all major concerns raised during the first round of review. Key improvements include:

• A more structured abstract, now aligned with the recommended Background–Methods–Results–Conclusions format, including key numerical data.

• Clearer and explicitly stated research aims.

• Enhanced methodological transparency, including a new subheading for statistical analysis and expanded psychometric information on the instruments used.

• Improved narrative interpretation of the results, better aligned with the research questions.

• A more thorough discussion supported by relevant updated literature.

• A dedicated and comprehensive limitations section.

• Significant language and style corrections for clarity and academic tone.

Overall, the revised manuscript meets the journal’s standards for clarity, scientific rigor, and completeness. I find the manuscript suitable for publication in its current form and have no further revisions to request.

Recommendation: Accept after minor formatting or editorial review (if needed)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful and thorough review of our manuscript. We truly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to evaluating our work.

Alejo

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank the authors for their efforts in improving the quality of their papers. The quality of the article has already improved a bit with the revisions. It is recommended that a methodology flowchart be added to present the methodology more clearly. The result figures need to be completely reorganized and typeset, with font content, etc. Please check the format and details.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
1. We thank the reviewer for their comments. However, we consider that the entire methodological process of the study is clearly presented and well-supported. The information provided, as well as the way it is presented, meets the principle of replicability expected in any scientific study.

2. We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the figures. We have carefully followed the specific guidelines provided by the journal concerning format, font, and content layout. We believe that the current design ensures a clear and intelligible presentation of the results. Nevertheless, we have corrected some lexical errors (e.g., 'tension' and 'anxiety') and made slight adjustments to improve the coherence and accuracy of the textual content within the figures. We understand that the final layout process is the responsibility of the editorial team during the production phase.
The revised article with the updated figures is attached.

Saludos