Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

 

You have written a paper focusing on the comparison of performance and anthropometric characteristics between U16 and U18 male basketball players to examine how they evolve during the post-PHV developmental phase.

However, some parts need to be addressed for greater clarity. 

The title is not the best and leaves out the main focus PHV. Please rephrase it. 

Abstract: well written

Introduction: Info on how to determine PHV is not present. Expand this section. Also, report the values from basketball and other team-related sports.

Additionally, why are these tests you chose important for assessing PHV? This is not clear and this does not back up your rationale for this study. 

Update the introduction accordingly.  

Methods: How did you determine the sample size (G*power or any other method) - report, sampling strategy. Report the ethical committee approval number.  Calculate a post hoc power and report it. This is also a huge limitation of the study and should be added to the limitations section.

Lines 93-94 pre-season competitive period / so what was it on or the other, it can be both - correct

with the passage at 5 and 10 meters - this is unclear - what passage?

Lead foot - how did you determine this? report

with and without the ball - was this chosen randomly, or did you have a sequence? report

report the type of contact surface

Lane agility drill - report a reference and the validity and reliability of the test / also report the break between the repetitions

A trial was deemed invalid if knee flexion occurred upon landing or if arm swing was detected (for CMJ) - back this up by a reference / also report the break between the repetitions and conditions (which was first CMJ or CMJ free arms).

Results:

Move Table 1 directly after the 3.1 paragraph. 

Figure 1 is a repetition of the Table 2 results - delete it as you are duplicating the results. 

In the tables, report the number of participants in a group. 

 

 

What were the instructions on the day before the testing? This can have a negative effect on the body's composition. Have the detailed steps been followed?

What was the warmup? Add info—was there a familiarisation session for the participants? Did they have experience with testing? report

What were the breaks between the tests? report

Discussion: The discussion is very descriptive and does not synthesise the results of available studies in this field. Also, it does not add anything new to the field. We know that older children are faster and more agile. So what?

The whole paragraph from 228 to 236 is without any references? 

In conclusion, you state, "Strategically adapting training to these stages not only enhances athletic performance but also contributes to the long-term health, safety, and overall development of youth athletes by minimizing the risk of overuse injuries and burnout." Really? This is the first time you mention all of this and its importance in this period. You didn't explore this in your study, and you don't support it with any references. 

Overall, the references should be done according to the journal's instructions. 

Overall, a very superficially written paper 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

A person's life is extremely precious. The authors thank you for taking the time to review our article and for your observations.
Attached are our responses.
Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I appreciate the opportunity to review your manuscript, “Performance and Anthropometric Comparison: U16 vs. U18 Male Basketball Players.” I would like to congratulate you on conducting a well-organized and relevant study. Your work addresses an important topic and provides valuable insights into the performance and anthropometric characteristics of youth basketball players, making a meaningful contribution to the field.

Below, I have included my comments and suggestions, which I hope will assist you in further improving and strengthening your manuscript.

 

Introduction

The introduction is well written and clearly presents the aim of the study.

Materials and Methods

Some details in this section need further clarification.

2.1. Participants

Did the participants engage in any complementary training, such as muscle strengthening? Was this assessed or controlled? If not, I recommend mentioning this as a limitation.

Was any inventory or questionnaire used to assess dietary supplement intake, or was supplement use considered as an inclusion or exclusion criterion? If not, this should also be acknowledged as a limitation.

These factors can influence both body composition and physical performance outcomes; therefore, recording or controlling for them would strengthen the methodology and interpretation of the findings.

2.2. Measurements

It would be helpful to specify the rest interval between tests, particularly the performance assessments. Even though these tests are short in duration, the recovery period between them is crucial for ensuring reliable results and for enabling reproducibility of the methods by your team or other researchers in the future.

2.2.1. Anthropometric measurement

I would like to highlight an important methodological point regarding the bioimpedance analysis. The manuscript does not describe whether standard pre-assessment procedures were followed, such as light fasting, adequate hydration, avoidance of physical exercise in the hours preceding the test, and abstention from alcohol or caffeine. These factors are widely recognized as influential in bioimpedance results, and if they were not controlled, this represents a significant limitation of the study that could compromise the precision and reproducibility of the measurements. I recommend clarifying whether these precautions were taken and, if not, discussing this limitation in the appropriate section of the manuscript (Discussion).

The manuscript uses the InBody 720 device (Biospace Co., Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea) to assess body composition. It is important to note that this analyzer uses a proprietary internal algorithm and does not allow for the selection or adjustment of equations tailored to specific populations (e.g., youth athletes). This characteristic limits the ability to personalize calculations and may impact the accuracy of the results in populations that differ from those used to develop the algorithm. I recommend that this limitation be explicitly stated in the discussion to better contextualize the interpretation of the findings and their comparison with other reference methods, such as DXA or plethysmography.

Results

The results are presented clearly.

Discussion

The discussion effectively addresses the influence of maturation and experience on performance. However, it could more thoroughly explore methodological limitations that impact the interpretation of the results, as noted in the Materials and Methods section.

Additionally, the relationship between test performance and in-game context could be discussed in greater depth (for example, in a dedicated paragraph), to enhance the practical applicability of the findings.

Conclusions

The conclusion was presented clearly.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

A person's life is extremely precious. The authors thank you for taking the time to review our article and for your observations.
Attached are our responses.
Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. I appreciate the effort and work that has gone into preparing this paper. Below are my comments and suggestions for revision.

The Abstract is generally well written and includes all the essential information regarding the objectives, methods, and findings of the study. It offers a clear and concise summary that accurately reflects the content of the manuscript. However, I recommend that the list of keywords be revised to avoid using abbreviations/ acronyms. Additionally, it would be preferable to present the keywords in alphabetical order for better readability and consistency with journal standards.

The Introduction is satisfactory but could benefit from further development. While the aim of the study is clearly stated, the background section is relatively brief and could be expanded to provide a broader context and stronger justification for the study. The section includes 21 citations, which is commendable; however, several of these references are outdated (e.g., from 2007, 2009). I recommend replacing these with more recent studies to reflect the current state of research and to enhance the scientific rigor of the manuscript.

The Materials and Methods section is too concise. The "Participants" subsection, in particular, is written very briefly, as are other parts of this section. I strongly suggest providing more detailed descriptions of the experimental procedures, measurements used. Including images or schematics of the tests and instruments would significantly improve clarity and reproducibility for readers. Clear methodological transparency is essential for validating and replicating scientific findings.

The Results section is also very brief and would benefit from expansion. The current text does not sufficiently elaborate on the findings, limiting the reader's understanding of the data. I encourage the authors to provide more detailed descriptions and interpretations of the results. On a positive note, the tables and figures are well-prepared and effectively support the data presented.

The Discussion is currently underdeveloped, consisting of only 6–7 citations and minimal analysis. This section should be substantially expanded to include a more in-depth interpretation of the findings in relation to existing literature. Comparing and contrasting your results with previous studies, identifying possible limitations, and discussing the broader implications of the research would significantly strengthen the manuscript.

The Conclusion is average in its current form. I recommend incorporating the most important statistical findings and highlighting key takeaways from the study. A stronger conclusion will leave a more lasting impression and better communicate the significance of the research.

In summary, while the manuscript shows promise, it requires major revision to meet the standards of a high-quality scientific publication. I recommend reconsideration after substantial revisions, particularly in terms of extending the Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion sections, as well as updating references and providing greater methodological detail.

Sincerely,

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

A person's life is extremely precious. The authors thank you for taking the time to review our article and for your observations.
Attached are our responses.
Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

Thank you for adequately addressing all of my comments and suggestions. The paper's quality improved. In my opinion, the paper is to be accepted in its current form. Next time, send the paper in this form in the first round!

Kind regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments.