A Comparison of the Application of Load Monitoring Metrics for Key Match Characteristics in Women’s Rugby Sevens
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe aim of this study was to investigate the relationships between match and player characteristics and three workload metrics: session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE), mechanical work, and an alternative Speed-Deceleration-Contact (SDC) model. While this research holds academic significance, it can be improved in the following aspects.
Introduction
The introduction is overly verbose and should be more concise.
Materials and Methods
In this section, it is recommended that the author incorporate subheadings or secondary headings to systematically organize and present information regarding the study subjects, instrument selection, and data analysis methods in a structured hierarchy.
Results
In data analysis, the author should report specific effect size values and provide 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the results of pairwise comparisons in post hoc tests. Furthermore, it is recommended that some or all of the figures be reprocessed for clarity and accuracy.
Other issues
Additionally, prior to the conclusion, the sections "Limitations" and "Practical implications" should be included.
Author Response
Introduction
The introduction is overly verbose and should be more concise.
We thank the reviewer for this feedback and have reviewed the introduction to reduce verbosity and enhance clarity where possible throughout.
Materials and Methods
In this section, it is recommended that the author incorporate subheadings or secondary headings to systematically organize and present information regarding the study subjects, instrument selection, and data analysis methods in a structured hierarchy.
We thank the reviewer for this useful suggestion and have included headers to denote participant information (line 117), procedures (line 126), and statistical analysis (line 198).
Results
In data analysis, the author should report specific effect size values and provide 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the results of pairwise comparisons in post hoc tests.
We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion and have added 95% confidence intervals and effect sizes for all post hoc tests throughout the results section (Lines 221-234, 246-248, 258-259, & 271-283).
Furthermore, it is recommended that some or all of the figures be reprocessed for clarity and accuracy.
We thank the reviewer for this suggestion to improve the presentation of the material. We have updated the Figures 1-4 (lines 235, 249, 260, & 284). We recognize that the images may be unnecessarily compressed in word document format and have also attached the images as separate files to the submission to ensure maximal clarity is available for final assembly of the materials.
Other issues
Additionally, prior to the conclusion, the sections "Limitations" and "Practical implications" should be included.
We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and have included a limitations section on lines 454-459 and a practical implications section on lines 460-479.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsInteresting study, in which variables related to workload are analysed in terms of parameters related to aspects of competition. The authors present relevant results that help in the management of workloads, although the sample size is limited. Likewise, they only carry it out in one sporting discipline.
It would be necessary for the authors to include an analysis of the power of the sample size. Likewise, a limitations section in the discussion section, indicating that the results only represent the women's rugby collective, and should not be extrapolated to other athletes.
In section 2. Material and methods, it is indicated that the study was approved by the bioethics committee, however, the approval code is not indicated. Please include it following the established recommendations.
Finally, the quantification of the load is also influenced by the condition of the athlete. The authors do not indicate inclusion criteria regarding the level of physical activity of the players. Neither do they indicate whether they are or have been injured, nor the training routine they follow. The incorporation of inclusion and exclusion criteria could avoid possible biases that should be considered in this version of the manuscript.
Author Response
Interesting study, in which variables related to workload are analysed in terms of parameters related to aspects of competition. The authors present relevant results that help in the management of workloads, although the sample size is limited. Likewise, they only carry it out in one sporting discipline.
It would be necessary for the authors to include an analysis of the power of the sample size.
We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. Results of the post-hoc power analysis have been included on lines 205-207.
Likewise, a limitations section in the discussion section, indicating that the results only represent the women's rugby collective, and should not be extrapolated to other athletes.
We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and have included a limitations section on lines 454-459.
In section 2. Material and methods, it is indicated that the study was approved by the bioethics committee, however, the approval code is not indicated. Please include it following the established recommendations.
We thank the reviewers for this observation. While we had previously listed the approval code in the section on the Institutional Review Board Statement (lines 496-497), we have now also added the approval code in the methods section on line 123.
Lines 121-123: The University of Victoria Human Research Ethics Board provided ethical approval for this investigation which followed the principles described in the Declaration of Helsinki (approval code 19-0546).
Finally, the quantification of the load is also influenced by the condition of the athlete. The authors do not indicate inclusion criteria regarding the level of physical activity of the players. Neither do they indicate whether they are or have been injured, nor the training routine they follow. The incorporation of inclusion and exclusion criteria could avoid possible biases that should be considered in this version of the manuscript.
We appreciate the reviewer’s observation on the importance of clearly identifying the physical condition of players. Notes on the athlete’s training program have been added to enhance the understanding of the nature of the study participants and emphasize that these are elite amateur athletes participating in a full-time centralized program (lines 119-120), participating in elite international-level competition (line 127).
Lines 119-120: All participants were members of a full-time national elite amateur centralized rugby sevens training program
Line 127: 103 international elite women’s sevens matches
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Corresponding Author, thank you for submitting your work to Applied Sciences and congratulations on your research.
Brief Summary
The study examines relationships beetween match and player characteristics and three workload measures in women's rugby sevens. The research analyzed 103 international matches involving 22 athletes, using GNSS data, body mass measurements and self-reported RPE. The three workload measures compared are: session Rating of Perceived Exertion (sRPE), mechanical work and Speed-Deceleration-Contact (SDC) model.
General Comments
The methodology is robust and well detailed, with clear definition of variables and statistical methods used, I belive there are only some minor revisions to suggest:
- Provide more details about RPE data collection procedure, specifying exact timing of post-match collection because timing is very important as RPE is influenced by short-term memory
- Clarify exclusion criteria used for matches not considered in the analysis, the reason is not clear to me
- Include brief discussion of study limitations in Conclusions section. There are no "limitations" listed, I think it would be appropriate to indicate which critical elements remain in this study
Specific Comments
- Line 8: This "Featured" section does not seem to be defined in the journal template
- Lines 111-117: Add information about athletes' competitive level and international experience, the classification seemed very generic to me; "full-time" is not a term that can be attributed to athletes because time does not identify their sport level
- Figures 1,2,3 and 4: the text on the axes is illegible
The manuscript is of high quality and represents a significant contribution to existing literature. With the minor modifications I have suggested, it will be even more valuable and usefull for the scientific community. I would like to review a final version to give a final opinion, good work.
Author Response
Brief Summary
The study examines relationships beetween match and player characteristics and three workload measures in women's rugby sevens. The research analyzed 103 international matches involving 22 athletes, using GNSS data, body mass measurements and self-reported RPE. The three workload measures compared are: session Rating of Perceived Exertion (sRPE), mechanical work and Speed-Deceleration-Contact (SDC) model.
General Comments
The methodology is robust and well detailed, with clear definition of variables and statistical methods used, I belive there are only some minor revisions to suggest:
- Provide more details about RPE data collection procedure, specifying exact timing of post-match collection because timing is very important as RPE is influenced by short-term memory
We thank the reviewer for this comment and have included additional detail about the post-match timing of RPE collection (lines 139-141).
Lines 139-141: One RPE value was self-reported by each athlete per match, using a 0-10 scale, in arbitrary units, familiar to the participants from regular use in training and competition, collected within thirty minutes following each match as players returned to the team’s designated area following post-match cool-down and any media obligations.
- Clarify exclusion criteria used for matches not considered in the analysis, the reason is not clear to me
We thank the reviewer for this comment, while we have tried to identify cases where matches were excluded from particular analysis we recognize that improved clarity is necessary. To that end, we have adjusted the language used to explain exclusion criteria for matches in the methods section based on player experience (line 185), match category (line 188), opponent ranking (lines 191-192), and match outcome (lines 193-194).
- Include brief discussion of study limitations in Conclusions section. There are no "limitations" listed, I think it would be appropriate to indicate which critical elements remain in this study
We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and have included a limitations section on lines 454-459.
Specific Comments
- Line 8: This "Featured" section does not seem to be defined in the journal template
We appreciate the reviewer’s observation, in preparation of the manuscript we used the Microsoft Word template offered by MDPI Applied Sciences (available here: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci/instructions). This template included a Featured Application section that was defined as “Featured Application: Authors are encouraged to provide a concise description of the specific application or a potential application of the work. This section is not mandatory.”
Reference: Applied Sciences. (n.d.). https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci/instructions, accessed on February 7, 2025.
- Lines 111-117: Add information about athletes' competitive level and international experience, the classification seemed very generic to me; "full-time" is not a term that can be attributed to athletes because time does not identify their sport level
We appreciate the reviewer’s observation on the importance of clearly identifying the physical condition of players. Notes on the athlete’s training program have been added to enhance the understanding of the nature of the study participants and emphasize that these are elite amateur athletes participating in a full-time centralized program (lines 119-120), participating in elite international-level competition (line 127).
Lines 119-120: All participants were members of a full-time national elite amateur centralized rugby sevens training program
Line 127: 103 international elite women’s sevens matches
- Figures 1,2,3 and 4: the text on the axes is illegible
We thank the reviewer for this suggestion to improve the presentation of the material. We have updated the Figures 1-4 (lines 235, 249, 260, & 284). We recognize that the images may be unnecessarily compressed in word document format and have also attached the images as separate files to the submission to ensure maximal clarity is available for final assembly of the materials.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have read the updated document carefully and believe that the authors have thoroughly addressed my comments. Therefore, I have no reservations in recommending its publication in this form
