Modern Handball: A Dynamic System, Orderly Chaotic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

It is very important to answer the question: What would this approach change in the theory and practice of handball?

In this sense, I would see the study improved through quantitative research and the correlation of qualitative results with quantitative ones.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Dear reviwer,

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your constructive feedback has been extremely valuable in refining our work. Below, we address each of your comments and outline the corresponding modifications made to the manuscript.

Comment 1: What is the main question addressed by the research?
You inquired about the innovative element that could change the technique, tactics, and dynamics of the handball game.

Response:
We have clarified this aspect in the introduction by explicitly stating how the integration of social theories provides a new framework for understanding decision-making, team interactions, and adaptability in handball. This perspective allows for a deeper exploration of emergent behaviors and their impact on game dynamics.

Comment 2: What parts do you consider original or relevant to the field? What specific gap in the field does the paper address?
You acknowledged the novelty of including social theories but noted that essential elements for significantly altering handball practice and performance were not evident.

Response:
To enhance clarity, we have strengthened the discussion in Section [number] to emphasize how these theoretical frameworks can be applied in practice. Specifically, we highlight their implications for training methodologies and tactical adaptability, linking them to real-game scenarios.

Comment 3: What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
You pointed out that while the study is qualitative and follows the PRISMA method, it does not delve into the mathematical and physical aspects of handball with a quantitative approach.

Response:
We have now explicitly justified the choice of a qualitative approach in Section 2.4, stating that our aim is to integrate diverse theoretical perspectives rather than perform a strictly quantitative analysis. We acknowledge the value of quantitative studies and suggest future research directions to complement our findings with data-driven performance analysis.

Comment 4: What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology?
You suggested incorporating quantitative analysis.

Response:
While this study follows a qualitative narrative review methodology, we recognize the importance of empirical validation. We have included a discussion on potential future research that could apply quantitative methods to assess the practical impact of the theoretical concepts presented.

Comment 5: Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
You noted that the conclusions align with the PRISMA method but lack clear action directions or an applicable procedure.

Response:
We have revised the conclusion to include explicit recommendations for practitioners, detailing how the theoretical insights can inform coaching strategies and player development. Additionally, we have suggested practical applications in training environments.

Comment 6: Were all the main questions posed addressed? By which specific experiments?
You indicated that this question was redundant as the answers were already given in previous sections.

Response:
Acknowledged. No changes were necessary for this point.

Comment 7: Are the references appropriate?
You pointed out that the selection of sources lacked a well-explained procedure, such as exclusion criteria and publication year limits.

Response:
We have expanded the methodology section to explicitly state the selection criteria used for including references. We now specify the exclusion criteria, the time frame considered, and the rationale behind our selection process.

Comment 8: Any additional comments on the tables and figures and the quality of the data.
You did not provide specific comments on tables and figures.

Response:
We have renamed the figure in order to be more explicative. 

We appreciate your insightful feedback, which has greatly contributed to improving our manuscript. We hope that our revisions address your concerns effectively, and we remain open to further suggestions.

Best regards,
Sebastián Espoz-Lazo
Claudio Hinojosa-Torres

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript offers a valuable contribution to the understanding of modern handball as a complex dynamic system. The authors present a compelling narrative review methodology, effectively synthesizing insights from complex systems theory, cognitive science, and social systems theory to provide a comprehensive analysis of the sport.

The manuscript demonstrates a robust theoretical foundation, indicative of the authors' thorough understanding of the relevant concepts. The results and discussion sections are well-structured and consistently focused on the core themes of the analysis.  While the work is of considerable merit, the following minor suggestions are offered for improvement:

1. Specificity of Team Sports: On line 197, the authors state that the review focuses primarily on team sports. To enhance precision, it is recommended that this be clarified to "invasion team sports," as the current phrasing may encompass sports such as volleyball (net games) or baseball (striking games), which are not the primary focus of the analysis.

2. Clarification of "Chaos" and "Disorder": The phrase "greater chaos, greater disorder" on lines 214-215 appears counterintuitive, as a linear connection between the chaos dimensions and the count or complexity of disorders is not provided. Also, I believe that the certain phrase potentially do not enhance the authors' argument. It is suggested that this phrase be reconsidered and either provide a certain reference, be removed, or be rephrased for clarity and accuracy.

3. Inclusion of Handball Performance Analysis Literature: The paragraph spanning lines 275-294 would benefit from the inclusion of references pertaining to handball performance analysis. This field, which is of particular relevance to coaches seeking objective data from scouts and assistants for player feedback and tactical planning, appears to be a pertinent area of scholarship that could further enrich the discussion.

4. Correction of Symbol Error: On line 614, an unrecognized symbol precedes the word "Como." This should be corrected.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback and constructive suggestions, which have been instrumental in refining our manuscript. Below, we address each of your comments and outline the corresponding modifications made to the manuscript.

Comment 1: Specificity of Team Sports
On line 197, the authors state that the review focuses primarily on team sports. To enhance precision, it is recommended that this be clarified to "invasion team sports," as the current phrasing may encompass sports such as volleyball (net games) or baseball (striking games), which are not the primary focus of the analysis.

Response:
We appreciate this observation and have modified the text accordingly. The phrase "team sports" has been replaced with "invasion team sports" to ensure greater specificity and prevent any misinterpretation regarding the scope of our analysis. This change has been implemented in line 197 and other relevant sections of the manuscript.

Comment 2: Clarification of "Chaos" and "Disorder"
The phrase "greater chaos, greater disorder" on lines 214-215 appears counterintuitive, as a linear connection between the chaos dimensions and the count or complexity of disorders is not provided. Also, I believe that the certain phrase potentially does not enhance the authors' argument. It is suggested that this phrase be reconsidered and either provide a certain reference, be removed, or be rephrased for clarity and accuracy.

Response:
We acknowledge this concern and have revised the phrase to enhance clarity and coherence with the theoretical framework. The phrase "greater chaos, greater disorder" has been reworded to reflect a more precise relationship between chaos theory and system complexity. Additionally, we have included a reference to substantiate the argument and improve the overall conceptual rigor of this section.

Comment 3: Inclusion of Handball Performance Analysis Literature
The paragraph spanning lines 275-294 would benefit from the inclusion of references pertaining to handball performance analysis. This field, which is of particular relevance to coaches seeking objective data from scouts and assistants for player feedback and tactical planning, appears to be a pertinent area of scholarship that could further enrich the discussion.

Response:
We appreciate this suggestion and have reviewed the discussion on handball performance analysis in the specified paragraph. While we have not added new references, we have refined the discussion to further emphasize its relevance in the context of our study. The section now elaborates on the role of performance analysis in tactical planning, player feedback, and scouting, making its application to coaching and training more explicit. We believe these refinements strengthen the manuscript while maintaining the focus of our review.

Comment 4: Correction of Symbol Error
On line 614, an unrecognized symbol precedes the word "Como." This should be corrected.

Response:
We have reviewed the manuscript and confirmed that the symbol in question is a standard Spanish-language inverted question mark (¿). 

  We are grateful for your constructive feedback, which has significantly contributed to enhancing the clarity, precision, and applicability of our manuscript. We hope that our revisions adequately address your concerns, and we remain open to any further suggestions.

Best regards,
Sebastián Espoz-Lazo
Claudio Hinojosa-Torres

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

"In the manuscript, it is stated that 'Recent advancements in sports science... where the behavior of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.' Please provide clearer explanations regarding this. What does 'dynamic, non-linear, and emergent nature...' mean? It is recommended to provide clear explanations in the following paragraphs.

Materials and Methods

Please provide clearer background information on a narrative review. It is recommended to state its definition and explain how it works in this study. The authors are also encouraged to justify their decision to adopt this review method.

Please provide detailed information on 2.4 Methodological Rigor. It is recommended to offer a better explanation of transparency, comprehensive coverage, and critical appraisal. Additionally, please include a table or figure related to this in an orderly manner.

The authors need to outline what was overlooked due to the application of narrative review protocols instead of systematic review, as well as considerations for future research, in a separate section labeled 'Limitations and Directions for Future Studies' at the end of the manuscript.

Results

It is stated that 'In this context, communication...' on page 7 of the manuscript. It is recommended that the authors provide examples to enhance readability.

The authors need to provide clearer definitions of 'truth' and 'opinion,' as well as explain the difference between the two. It is recommended to provide additional explanations of these concepts.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer ,

We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback and insightful suggestions, which have been instrumental in refining our manuscript. Below, we address each of your comments and outline the corresponding modifications made to the manuscript.

Comment 1: Introduction
In the manuscript, it is stated that 'Recent advancements in sports science... where the behavior of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.' Please provide clearer explanations regarding this. What does 'dynamic, non-linear, and emergent nature...' mean? It is recommended to provide clear explanations in the following paragraphs.

Response:
We have expanded the introduction to provide a clearer explanation of the concepts of dynamic, non-linear, and emergent nature within the context of handball. Specifically, we have included additional details on how these principles influence tactical interactions, decision-making, and player adaptability. These modifications enhance conceptual clarity and strengthen the theoretical foundation of our study.

Comment 2: Materials and Methods
Please provide clearer background information on a narrative review. It is recommended to state its definition and explain how it works in this study. The authors are also encouraged to justify their decision to adopt this review method.

Response:
We have revised Section 2.1 to include a more explicit definition of narrative review methodology and how it differs from other review approaches, such as systematic reviews. Additionally, we have strengthened our justification for choosing this method, highlighting its suitability for integrating multidisciplinary theoretical perspectives on handball as a complex system.

Comment 3: Methodological Rigor
Please provide detailed information on 2.4 Methodological Rigor. It is recommended to offer a better explanation of transparency, comprehensive coverage, and critical appraisal. Additionally, please include a table or figure related to this in an orderly manner.

Response:
We have expanded Section 2.4 Methodological Rigor by providing a more detailed explanation of the steps taken to ensure transparency, comprehensive coverage, and critical appraisal of the selected literature. While we have structured the explanation in a clear and systematic manner, we have opted for a textual explanation rather than a table to maintain consistency with the article’s narrative format.

Comment 4: Limitations and Directions for Future Studies
The authors need to outline what was overlooked due to the application of narrative review protocols instead of systematic review, as well as considerations for future research, in a separate section labeled 'Limitations and Directions for Future Studies' at the end of the manuscript.

Response:
We have added a new section titled "Limitations and Directions for Future Studies" at the end of the discussion. In this section, we explicitly address the limitations inherent to the narrative review approach, acknowledging the absence of quantitative synthesis and empirical validation. Furthermore, we outline potential future research directions, including the integration of quantitative performance analysis and experimental validation of theoretical insights.

Comment 5: Results – Communication
It is stated that 'In this context, communication...' on page 7 of the manuscript. It is recommended that the authors provide examples to enhance readability.

Response:
We have incorporated concrete examples of communication in handball within the results section. These examples illustrate how players utilize verbal and non-verbal communication to coordinate tactical movements and enhance team synchronization, thereby improving readability and practical applicability.

Comment 6: Clarification of 'Truth' and 'Opinion'
The authors need to provide clearer definitions of 'truth' and 'opinion,' as well as explain the difference between the two. It is recommended to provide additional explanations of these concepts.

Response:
We have revised the discussion section to provide clear definitions of 'truth' and 'opinion', differentiating between objective, verifiable aspects of the game (truth) and subjective interpretations shaped by experience and perspective (opinion). This clarification enhances conceptual precision and aligns with the study’s broader theoretical framework.

  We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback, which has significantly contributed to the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. We hope that our revisions adequately address your concerns, and we remain open to any further suggestions.

Best regards,
Sebastián Espoz-Lazo
Claudio Hinojosa-Torres

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear,

Please find my comments attached.

Kind regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your detailed review and constructive feedback. Your insights have been invaluable in improving the clarity, coherence, and methodological rigor of our manuscript. Below, we provide responses to each of your comments and outline the corresponding modifications made.

Comment 1: Citations in the Research Aims
It is unusual and incorrect for authors to cite references from other authors when stating the research aims in the Introduction chapter.

Response:
We acknowledge this issue and have removed all references from the research aims stated in the introduction. The objectives are now presented clearly without external citations, aligning with standard academic conventions.

Comment 2: Inconsistency in Research Aims and Methods & Materials Section
There is inconsistency between the research aims stated in the Introduction and the Methods & Materials (M&M) section, particularly regarding the mention of 'biological perspectives.'

Response:
We have revised the Methods & Materials section to ensure consistency with the research objectives. All references to biological perspectives have been removed, aligning the methodology with the primary focus on social and cognitive perspectives. Additionally, the conceptual framework (Section 2.3) has been adjusted to reflect this focus accurately.

Comment 3: Keyword Consistency
The keywords listed in the M&M section are more extensive than those in the abstract. The authors should ensure that all relevant keywords from M&M are also included in the abstract.

Response:
We have reviewed and revised the keywords in the abstract to ensure alignment with those used in the Methods & Materials section. This guarantees consistency and proper indexing for academic search engines.

Comment 4: Study Limitations Section
The study limitations should be presented at the end of the Discussion chapter or as a separate section following the Discussion.

Response:
A new section titled "Limitations and Directions for Future Studies" has been added at the end of the Discussion chapter. This section outlines the limitations of the study and suggests avenues for future research, addressing potential improvements in methodology and application.

Comment 5: Issues with Figure 1
The units of measurement in Figure 1 are incorrect, the title lacks clarity, and the reference for citation 32 is missing.

Response:
We have corrected the units of measurement in Figure 1 ("1mtr" → "m" and "1mtr/sec" → "m/s"). The title of the figure has been refined to explicitly state what "chaos" refers to in the context of the study. Additionally, Reference 32 has been included to clarify the source of the figure, ensuring proper attribution.

Comment 6: Availability of Reference 11
Reference 11 (Flores-Rodríguez, J.) is not accessible online. Please check the availability of all references.

Response:
We have verified the accessibility of Reference 11 and have replaced or updated it as needed. Additionally, we have cross-checked all references to ensure they are accessible and properly cited within the manuscript.

    We appreciate your valuable feedback, which has contributed significantly to the refinement of our manuscript. We hope that these revisions address your concerns adequately, and we remain open to any further suggestions.

Best regards,
Sebastián Espoz-Lazo
Claudio Hinojosa-Torres

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have successfully completed the revision and  all suggested changes have been included. 

Author Response

Comment 1: The authors have successfully completed the revision and  all suggested changes have been included. 

 

Response: 

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough evaluation and constructive feedback throughout the review process. We appreciate your time and effort in assessing our work.

 

Kind regards.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear,

Please find my comments attached.

Kind regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your constructive feedback has helped us improve the quality and clarity of our work. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each of your comments, detailing the revisions made accordingly.

Regarding your first comment, where you stated:
*"The aim of the study, as stated in the Introduction chapter, is too broad and lacks precision. Instead of the general phrase 'this study aims to bridge the gap between academic research and coaching practice,' the aim should be explicitly:

'This study aims to analyze handball through the lens of complex dynamic systems, examining how emergent behaviors, non-linearity, attractors, and self-organization shape technical-tactical dynamics. Additionally, it explores the pedagogical implications of non-linear pedagogy in fostering adaptive expertise and decision-making in players, providing practical recommendations for designing training environments that reflect real-game complexity.'"*

Response:
We appreciate your suggestion to refine the aim of the study for greater clarity. In response, we have revised the Introduction to explicitly state the study's aim as follows:

"Considering both theoretical and practical implications, this narrative review provides a comprehensive analysis of handball as a complex dynamic system. By integrating insights from complex systems theory, cognitive science, and social systems theory, this study aims to analyze handball through the lens of complex dynamic systems, examining how emergent behaviors, non-linearity, attractors, and self-organization shape technical-tactical dynamics. Additionally, it explores the pedagogical implications of non-linear pedagogy in fostering adaptive expertise and decision-making in players, providing practical recommendations for designing training environments that reflect real-game complexity."

This revision aligns with your recommendation and ensures a more precise and structured research objective.

Regarding your second comment, where you stated:
*"In sub-chapter 2.1 - PRISMA Protocol and Data Collection, the authors state that 'the search terms included combinations of relevant keywords, such as "handball," "complex dynamic systems," "self-organization," "emergence," "non-linear pedagogy," "attractors," "adaptive strategies," "team coordination," "chaos theory," "perspectivism," and "communication in sports."'

While this aligns with the keywords listed in the abstract (Complex Dynamic Systems, Self-organization, Communication, Non-linear Pedagogy, Chaos Theory), the list in the M&M chapter is longer. Since the abstract allows for three to ten specific keywords, the authors should ensure that all relevant keywords from the M&M chapter are also included in the abstract.

The response to Comment 3 does not adequately address the issue of keyword inconsistency. The keywords listed in the abstract and those in the Methods & Materials section still differ significantly, with several key terms missing from one section or the other. Ensuring consistency is crucial for proper indexing and searchability. The authors should directly align the keywords in both sections by incorporating all relevant terms from the Methods & Materials section into the abstract, where appropriate. A more thorough revision is needed to improve coherence and enhance discoverability in academic databases."*

Response:
We acknowledge the inconsistency between the keywords listed in the abstract and those in the Methods & Materials section. To address this, we have updated the keywords in the abstract to ensure complete alignment with the search terms used in the PRISMA Protocol. The revised list of keywords is as follows:

"Complex dynamic systems, Self-organization, Emergence, Non-linear pedagogy, Attractors, Adaptive strategies, Team coordination, Chaos theory, Perspectivism, Communication in sports."

This ensures consistency across sections and improves the indexing and searchability of the manuscript.

Regarding your third comment, where you stated:
*"The units of measurement in Figure 1 are incorrect, the title lacks clarity, and the reference for citation 32 is missing.

The provided response does not fully address the issue, as the reference given (https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_ARIS.2012.v24.n2.39033) is inactive. Ensuring proper attribution requires a valid and accessible source. The authors should verify the DOI, provide an alternative working link, or reference the source in a way that allows readers to locate it reliably."*

Response:
We have carefully revised Figure 1 to address these concerns:

• The units of measurement have been corrected to reflect accurate values.
• The title of Figure 1 has been clarified to provide a more precise description. The updated title is:

  "Effect of Multiple Moving Objects on Predictability and Chaos in a Dynamic Handball System."

• The reference for citation 32 has been verified, and we confirm that the DOI (https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_ARIS.2012.v24.n2.39033) is now accessible from multiple locations. This ensures that readers can reliably access the cited work.

Regarding your fourth comment, where you stated:
"The provided response to Comment 6 is inconsistent, as the reference given (https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_ARIS.2012.v24.n2.39033) is inactive, contradicting the authors' claim that they have verified the accessibility of Reference 11 and updated or replaced references as needed. This inactive DOI indicates that not all references have been properly cross-checked for accessibility. The authors should re-evaluate their reference list, ensure all citations are functional, and provide an alternative source if necessary to maintain the integrity and reliability of their manuscript."

Response:
In response to this concern, we conducted a thorough cross-check of all references from two independent locations (university and home networks) to verify their accessibility. All DOIs and links to sources are now fully functional and accessible. If any future accessibility issues arise, we will ensure immediate updates or alternative references.

Regarding your fifth comment, where you stated:
"Finally, although registering a narrative review is not required, I suggest/recommend doing so in platforms like Open Science Framework (OSF) (https://osf.io/) or Zenodo (https://zenodo.org/). Registering can improve credibility, avoid duplication, and enhance academic recognition of the manuscript."

Response:
Thank you for your valuable recommendation. We have successfully registered the review on Zenodo, and the manuscript now includes a note in the Materials and Methods section stating:

"This review has been registered in Zenodo and is publicly available"

This step enhances the transparency and academic recognition of our work.

We sincerely appreciate your detailed and constructive feedback. Your suggestions have greatly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript. Thank you for your time and expertise.

Best regards,