How to Optimize Training Design? A Narrative Review of Load Modulators in Basketball Drills

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

 

You have written an interesting paper focusing on the multifaceted factors influencing the external and internal workload of drills during training sessions.

 

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

The abstract is too general - so what are your outcomes of the literature review? Be specific

Introduction:

Lines 45-47 : Back this sentence up by references

Overall, in the introduction, you poorly present basketball and its main performance factors that are essential for success - and the importance of basketball drills and overall load monitoring. Why is this even important

Also, what are your objectives of this narrative review - clearly state them - Specify the key question(s)

Table 3 is not mentioned in the text - a short sentence would be good :)

What about playing in training against B team or club youth divisions as Scrimmage Games?

Does this imply just on the club level or also on the national team level, or are there any differences in approaches? Please elaborate on the manuscript.

 

Overall, it is a well-written paper that needs minor adjustments and amendments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1, please see the attachment where we answer your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Dear Authors,

This interesting study/ narrative review  examines the multifaceted factors influencing both the 12 external and internal workload of drills during training sessions and provides valuable insights into the complex interplay of factors shaping drill workload in basketball. We agree that training drills are fundamental to the development of athletes across various sports disciplines. This  study: How to Optimize Training Design? A Narrative Review of Load Modulators in Basketball Drills a significant contribution to the field in my opinion. 

With respect,
reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2, please see the attachment where we answer your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear corresponding Author, thanks for submitting your paper.

I would like to share with you some aspect about your narrative review.

1. Abstract: the abstract lacks of a practical conclusion with reference to the title question. Please add.
2. Table 1. References should be added to the text of the table, not in the notes. Otherwise it is not clear which reference is referred to what part of the text.
3. The structure of the review must be revised. It is clear to me that your work is a narrative review and the indications for Authors allow you to use a different naming for the paragraphs, at the same time you inserted all the information within the "Introduction" paragraph and it is not correct. A minimum of method must be described and you must allow to reply the research of the papers. I suggest to you to check these narrative reviews to get an idea how to create a proper structure of the paper: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/15/6701 or https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8247/18/3/422 
4. There is no discussion in the paper. Please add.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3, please see the attachment where we answer your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a highly relevant topic, analyzing the modulators of training load in basketball and their impact on performance and training planning. The paper provides a detailed overview of how factors such as playing space, number of players, and game rules influence the physiological and tactical demands of training. Additionally, the focus on training load personalization is particularly relevant for coaches and strength and conditioning specialists.

However, since this article is intended for a Special Issue on biomechanics, I suggest adding a more explicit reference to biomechanics in the introduction to better align it with your work.

Furthermore, I recommend the following revisions:

Create a dedicated section for abbreviations, preferably in alphabetical order, to facilitate checking their consistency throughout the text. Some abbreviations need to be standardized:

• Line 109: Player Load (LD) is abbreviated, but in lines 127 and 223 it is written in full. Choose whether to use the abbreviation consistently or not.
• Line 150: HR is not explained. Provide the full term or introduce the abbreviation earlier (first occurrence in line 103).
• VO₂ Max: Lowercase in lines 246 and 254, uppercase in line 167. Choose a consistent format.

Bibliography issues: There are duplicate references and inconsistencies in citation usage within the text. It may be helpful to use reference management software (e.g., Zotero) to correct these issues:

• Reference 46: Missing title.
• Reference 53: title is written entirely in uppercase.
• Line 70: Incorrect citation format. Add the corresponding reference number.
• Lines 165, 248, 270: Missing reference numbers.
• Line 153: Citation appears before the comma (should be after).

Duplicate references:

• References 31 and 32 are duplicates.
• References 55 and 59 are duplicates.
• References 4, 22, and 37 are duplicates.

Tables:

• Table 2: May not be very useful, but if kept, ensure consistent bibliography formatting. Example: "Atli, Köklü, Alemdaroğlu, & Koçak, 2013" vs. "Conte et al., 2016"—consider associating these with reference numbers.
• Table 3: Add bibliographic citations.
• Check if the table formatting requirements have been met.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English used in the manuscript is generally good; however, some sentences could be refined to improve readability and fluency. Minor grammatical adjustments and rewording in certain sections would enhance the clarity of the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4, please see the attachment where we answer your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear corresponding Author,

thanks for your modifications, please two more aspects:

1. In section 2 please add the total amount of papers that you took in consideration
2. The image at the bottom of the paper is very interesting but it is not qualitative, please upload a better image.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

Please, see the attachment.

Thanks for your feedback. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf