In-Season Physical and Physiological Variations in Junior Basketball: A Longitudinal Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors present a real world framework with no artificial settings, aligned with the training and competition season. The combination of standardized team training and targeted individual is also interesting, yet this manuscript does not bring relevant novelty. And although relevant to see the information the training minutes per week are, authors missed presenting intensity metrics, which challenge interpretation. Also, considering the specific study group, several statements along the discussion section have a causal tone, are quite speculative and tone should be lowered.

Comments on the document:

lines 78-80 and 180 - Missing references

line 84 – Rephrase the sentence starting by “Similar patterns have been observed in female athletes” as previous paragraphs refer to athletes in general and not to male athletes.

181-182 – sentence should be under discussion and not methodology

216- what is the reference of the vo2 max equation and level of validity again other existent methods to evaluation V02 max?  this is missing

Most relevant results: 331-332

However, both agility tests revealed significant improvements across the season, 331 with large effect sizes (T -test - η² = 0.673; Lane agility - η² = 0.644), indicating that 332 in-season training had a substantial positive impact on agility performance.

Paragraph starting in line 342 and lines 370-372: Authors must ground the comments related to presenting height increase (around 2 cm during the study) as a significant morphological change due to training, considering the study group was formed by male adolescents. Authors should make a peak-height-velocity adjustment, as training effects cannot be separated from natural growth spurts

Lines 353-354 - Lack of proper grounding of conclusion statement

363 – mistake in writing BH?

364-367 – mere observations of results yet lack discussion why

375-377 – authors relate BM increase only with training, and not with the natural BH increase. If BMI is constant, authors should ground BM with BH and discuss its association with training. This aspect is therefore missing

416-418 – missing reference

446-447 – it would have been interesting for an EMG testing during CMJ, as in no other case, muscle activation can be identified.

In limitations, authors should also include not using a specific VO2 max test but a equation for assessment. Please consult: Apostolidis N, Nassis GP, Bolatoglou T, Geladas ND. Physiological and technical characteristics of elite young basketball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2004 Jun;44(2):157-63. PMID: 15470313.

Future studies should be on a 12-month basis, to include off-season evaluations.

515-517- remove limitations from conclusion

Comments on the Quality of English Language

good level

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

Time is an extremely precious resource, and the authors are grateful that you have taken the time out of your life to study, analyze, and constructively critique our manuscript.
In the attached document, we set out our responses to your comments.
Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Study design, maturation, and causal inference

The cohort is adolescent and still growing; body height increased meaningfully across T1–T3, and composition trends likely reflect natural maturation plus training. Yet maturation status (e.g., years from peak height velocity, maturity offset) is not measured or controlled, and there is no control/comparison group. As written, training effects cannot be disentangled from growth-related change. Please:

1. extract and report a maturation proxy (if stature and sitting height exist, estimate maturity offset),
2. discuss maturity timing dispersion and its influence on outcomes, and
3. temper causal language throughout. At minimum, upgrade the limitations to prioritize the absence of maturation control and a control group.

These points are critical given the documented increases in height and composition indices over time (Table 1; text in Results/Discussion).

 

Ethics and reporting transparency

You state informed consent and ethics approval “by the faculty” but do not provide an approval number/date or committee name. Please add the ethics committee’s name/institution and approval code/date. Also, specify whether any adverse events occurred and confirm data completeness.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

Time is an extremely precious resource, and the authors are grateful that you have taken the time out of your life to study, analyze, and constructively critique our manuscript.
In the attached document, we set out our responses to your comments.
Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors efforts in improving the results interpretation and soundness of the manusript are evident. Work well acknoledged.

Just replace BH by BM in line 373, which may have been a writting mistake. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

In the attached document, we set out our responses to your comments for second report.
Thank you

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Add one sentence in the Discussion explicitly noting inter-individual maturity-timing variability and how it can confound within-season changes (even with the same training).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

In the attached document, we set out our responses to your comments for second report.
Thank you

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf