In-season training responses and perceived wellbeing and recovery status in professional soccer players

Nuno Mateus; Bruno Gonçalves; Jose Luis Felipe; Javier Sánchez-Sánchez; Jorge Garcia-Unanue; Anthony Weldon; Jaime Sampaio

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0254655

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 17, 2021
13 May 2021 Decision Letter - Moacir Marocolo, Editor PONE-D-21-01752 In-season training responses and perceived wellbeing and recovery status in professional football players PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mateus, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 28 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Moacir Marocolo, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research. 3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear Authors, congratulations for your work that shows, besides the benefits of a higher sleep quality in performance the coaches do not take in account during training periodization. Here are my considerations: i) Translate all authors afilliations to english ii) The article is well written regards Reviewer #2: The aims of this research study involving 22 male football players were to classify professional football players' training responses during the season and to examine the relationship between these different responses with wellbeing and recovery indices. No probabilistic interactions were found between training response with wellbeing and recovery markers. Minor revisions: 1- State and justify the study’s target sample size with a pre-study statistical power calculation. 2- Indicate the date range subject data was collected. 3- Indicate the summary statistics provided in parentheses; i.e., (##.# +/- ##.#). Probably mean and standard deviation. 4- Table 2: Define M\|data. Reviewer #3: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-21-01752 Manuscript Title: In-season training responses and perceived wellbeing and recovery status in professional football players Overall: The aim of their study was “to classify professional football players' training responses during the season and to examine the relationship between these different responses with wellbeing and recovery indices”. Although the topic may be relevant, I have several concerns. Not including matches information is a relevant limitation in my opinion, once all preparation is for matches. I think the rationale (introduction) should be improved dramatically, especially showing why did you do this study? It is not clear on the current form. In the introduction, the link between the premises seems confusing and the aim of the study is not precise. The current aim is inappropriate from a scientific mindset. Researchers classify or examine BECAUSE they have an aim! But per se, “to classify or to examine” are not logical scientific aims. Maybe, should be better to say: aim was to examine WHETHER the players ‘training responses are associated with wellbeing and recovery indices (?). I am not sure what was/were the aim (s) (?). By the way, the hypothesis is unclear too. If your aim is "only" to describe some variable (s), then okay not having any hypothesis. However, it seems you are willing to make an association between variables? Specific comments: The article presents several terms “workload” and you should change for just “load or training load”. Please read Winter E. "Workload"--time to abandon? J Sports Sci. 2006;24(12):1237-8. Please use “soccer” instead football across the whole manuscript. You must provide a rationale for your sample size. Tables and figure MUST be self-exploratory 100% (e.g., the reader not need to go back to the text to understand the abbreviations). I could not find the legends of the figures. I suggest creating a Experimental Design Figure to make it easier to understand your experiment. Crucial for the interpretation is the reliability of the measurements. I think that it would strengthen the study if the authors could add ICC an CV values for their most important variables to get an indication of the reliability. You must provide a rationale for all measurements performed. Please provide references about validation, reliability for the variables (i.e., daily wellness questionnaire) measured and presented in Figure 1. More information about the sample must be provided (e.g., VO2max, YOYO performance?). What about the period of the time, number of matches, interval between matches, etc. The results presentation are confusing. For example, Table 1: distance covered (m) Cluster LOW 50.38±7.55. Does it mean that the players run only ~50 meters? Please make it clearer. Overall, I can evaluate better the discussion section only if the authors clarify all points that I pointed. The conclusion is confusing as the whole paper ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes:** Luis Leitão Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254655.r001
Revision 1
16 Jun 2021 Author Response Dear Editor, Thank you very much for the review of our manuscript entitled: “In-season training responses and perceived wellbeing and recovery status in professional soccer players”. We sincerely appreciate all valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript. Our responses to the Reviewers’ comment are described below in a point-to-point manner. Appropriate changes, suggested by the Reviewers have been introduced to the manuscript (highlighted within the document). Yours sincerely, The Authors Responses to the reviewer's comments Reviewer 1 Dear Authors, Congratulations for your work that shows, besides the benefits of a higher sleep quality in performance the coaches do not take in account during training periodization. Here are my considerations: Translate all authors affiliations to English. Authors: We understand the reviewer point. The co-author insisted that his university requires that workers' affiliation should be presented in the country's official language. The article is well written. Thank you. Reviewer 2 The aims of this research study involving 22 male football players were to classify professional football players' training responses during the season and to examine the relationship between these different responses with wellbeing and recovery indices. No probabilistic interactions were found between training response with wellbeing and recovery markers. Minor revisions: State and justify the study’s target sample size with a pre-study statistical power calculation. Authors: We found this as being a relevant consideration since the beginning of the study design. We conducted a Bayesian ANOVA analysis, which does not allow to perform statistical power calculation, neither is so susceptible to the usage of small samples. Nevertheless, we also considered a sample size similar to previous investigations involving professional soccer teams to ensure adequate representativity (Martín-García, A., Díaz, A. G., Bradley, P. S., Morera, F., & Casamichana, D. (2018). Quantification of a professional football team's external load using a microcycle structure. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 32(12), 3511-3518; Casamichana, D., Martín-García, A., Díaz, A. G., Bradley, P. S., & Castellano, J. Accumulative weekly load in a professional football team: with special reference to match playing time and game position. Biology of Sport, 38(1), 115-124). Indicate the date range subject data was collected. Authors: Thank you. The information was added accordingly (please, see P6 L137). The text now reads: “Training load and pre-training wellness indices data for all players were collected over a 16-week in-season period (November-February), without any intervention of the research team regarding training volume and intensity, neither to wellness status perceived by the players (Fig 1).”. Indicate the summary statistics provided in parentheses; i.e., (##.# +/- ##.#). Probably mean and standard deviation. Authors: Thank you. The information was added accordingly (please, see P9 L221 – P10 L225). Table 2: Define M\|data. Authors: Thank you. The information was added accordingly (please, see Table 2 legend, P13). Reviewer 3 Manuscript Number: PONE-D-21-01752 Manuscript Title: In-season training responses and perceived wellbeing and recovery status in professional football players Overall: The aim of their study was “to classify professional football players' training responses during the season and to examine the relationship between these different responses with wellbeing and recovery indices”. Although the topic may be relevant, I have several concerns. Not including matches information is a relevant limitation in my opinion, once all preparation is for matches. Authors: We agree that matches’ information is important. We tried, but ended up not using it. In most of the cases, football teams do not use the same tracking system in matches and training sessions. In face of this difference, the literature and anecdotal reports from practitioners advised against the risk of analysing data with this instrument bias and, thus, we have not included the data from the matches. I think the rationale (introduction) should be improved dramatically, especially showing why did you do this study? It is not clear on the current form. In the introduction, the link between the premises seems confusing and the aim of the study is not precise. The current aim is inappropriate from a scientific mindset. Researchers classify or examine BECAUSE they have an aim! But per se, “to classify or to examine” are not logical scientific aims. Maybe, should be better to say: aim was to examine WHETHER the players ‘training responses are associated with wellbeing and recovery indices (?). I am not sure what was/were the aim (s) (?). Authors: Thank you. We believe that our message was not clear due to language problems. The information was changed accordingly (please, see P5 L112). The text now reads: “Consequently, the purpose of this study was to describe professional soccer players' training responses during the in-season and to investigate whether these different responses are associated with the players’ wellbeing and recovery indices.”. By the way, the hypothesis is unclear too. If your aim is "only" to describe some variable (s), then okay not having any hypothesis. However, it seems you are willing to make an association between variables? Authors: Thank you. The information was changed accordingly (please, see P5 L107). The text now reads: “We hypothesized that coaches’ application of training methods, that mimic game demands and include preventive strategies (e.g., unload players prior to match days) will result in different training loads. Furthermore, proper sleep and wellbeing may be associated with higher training stimulus, while poor sleep and recovery indices may lead to lower training loads as a coaching strategy to cope with the players' pre-training wellness status.”. Specific comments: The article presents several terms “workload” and you should change for just “load or training load”. Please read Winter E. "Workload"--time to abandon? J Sports Sci. 2006;24(12):1237-8. Authors: Relevant consideration. Thank you. The manuscript was changed accordingly. Please use “soccer” instead football across the whole manuscript. Authors: Thank you. The manuscript was changed accordingly. You must provide a rationale for your sample size. Authors: The professional squad used as a sample was constituted of twenty-two outfield players. Football is a contact team sport and, at the highest level of competition, it is very difficult to have the possibility of monitoring the players in long periods of time without disturbance from injuries or medications that might affect their responses. For example, nine of the players did not accomplish the criteria for inclusion or were medicated during the study period or had prolonged injuries. These players had to be excluded from the sample, which leaded to a final sample of thirteen players. Tables and figure MUST be self-exploratory 100% (e.g., the reader not need to go back to the text to understand the abbreviations). I could not find the legends of the figures. Authors: Thank you. The information was added accordingly (please, see P12 L233, P13 Table 2, P14 L255). I suggest creating a Experimental Design Figure to make it easier to understand your experiment. Authors: Thank you. The Experimental Design Figure was added accordingly (please, see P7 L152). Crucial for the interpretation is the reliability of the measurements. I think that it would strengthen the study if the authors could add ICC an CV values for their most important variables to get an indication of the reliability. Authors: Thank you. The information related to CV was added accordingly (please, see Table 1, P11). You must provide a rationale for all measurements performed. Authors: Thank you. In the Data Collection section, the authors reported information about the validation of the variables. Furthermore, Sports Science literature is unanimous in describing the reliability for the variables. Indeed, previous research has applied similar procedures, with the same variables described (Oliveira, R., et al. (2019). In-season training load quantification of one-, two-and three-game week schedules in a top European professional soccer team. Physiology & behavior, 201, 146-156.). Please provide references about validation, reliability for the variables (i.e., daily wellness questionnaire) measured and presented in Figure 1. Authors: Thank you. The information was added accordingly (please, see P8 L180). The text now reads: “The questionnaire was designed to be brief, precise, and based on the components of self-perceived tools used to assess players’ wellness in the literature [23, 24].”. More information about the sample must be provided (e.g., VO2max, YOYO performance?). What about the period of the time, number of matches, interval between matches, etc. Authors: We agree with your comment, it is a limitation of the study. The team studied had important competitive goals. It is very difficult to have those goals compatible with ongoing research. Therefore, the coaching staff required the research team to not influence the training sessions (it was impossible to assess players’ VO2 max). Besides, when asked about the possibility of informing the research team about the results of the assessment tests carried out at the beginning of the pre-season, the club did not authorize our request. Regarding the date range in which the data was collected, information was added accordingly (please, see P6 L137). The text now reads: “Training load and pre-training wellness indices data for all players were collected over a 16-week in-season period (November-February), without any intervention of the research team regarding training volume and intensity, neither to wellness status perceived by the players (Fig 1).”. The results presentation are confusing. For example, Table 1: distance covered (m) Cluster LOW 50.38±7.55. Does it mean that the players run only ~50 meters? Please make it clearer. Authors: As described in the Materials and Methods section, all the training load variables were normalized according to the time on the pitch, during each training session to provide an understanding of session intensity (Mateus, N., Exel, J., Gonçalves, B., Weldon, A., & Sampaio, J. (2021). Off-training physical activity and training responses as determinants of sleep quality in young soccer players. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1-10; Malone S, Owen A, Newton M, Mendes B, Tiernan L, Hughes B, et al. Wellbeing perception and the impact on external training output among elite soccer players. Journal of science and medicine in sport. 2018;21(1):29-34). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254655.r002
22 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Moacir Marocolo, Editor PONE-D-21-01752R1 In-season training responses and perceived wellbeing and recovery status in professional soccer players PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mateus, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 06 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Moacir Marocolo, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: No ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Dear authors: Please include the limitations on the end of the discussion section. For example: Not including matches information is a relevant limitation in my opinion, once all preparation is for matches. More information about the sample must be provided (e.g., VO2max, YOYO performance?). What about the period of the time, number of matches, interval between matches, etc. Authors: We agree with your comment, it is a limitation of the study. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254655.r003
Revision 2
27 Jun 2021 Author Response Dear Editor, Thank you very much for the review of our manuscript entitled: “In-season training responses and perceived wellbeing and recovery status in professional soccer players”. We sincerely appreciate all valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript. Our responses to the Reviewers’ comment are described below in a point-to-point manner. Appropriate changes, suggested by the Reviewers have been introduced to the manuscript (highlighted within the document). Yours sincerely, The Authors Responses to the reviewer's comments Reviewer 3 Reviewer3: Please include the limitations on the end of the discussion section. For example: Not including matches information is a relevant limitation in my opinion, once all preparation is for matches. Authors: Thank you. The information was added accordingly (please, see P18 L332). The text now reads: “A second limitation concerns the non-inclusion of match-day information once the balance of training stimulus has a clear focus on the upcoming match.” Reviewer3: More information about the sample must be provided (e.g., VO2max, YOYO performance?). What about the period of the time, number of matches, interval between matches, etc. Authors: Relevant consideration. However, the team studied had important competitive goals. Hence, it is difficult to have those goals compatible with ongoing research. Therefore, the coaching staff required the research team to not influence the training sessions (it was impossible to assess players’ VO2 max). Besides, when asked about the possibility of informing the research team about the results of the assessment tests carried out at the beginning of the pre-season, the club did not authorize our request. Regarding the data collection period, the number of matches and the interval between matches in which the data was collected, information was added accordingly (please, see P6 L137). The text now reads: “Training load and pre-training wellness indices data for all players were collected over a 16-week in-season period (November-February), without any intervention of the research team regarding training volume and intensity, neither to wellness status perceived by the players (Fig 1). Participants trained on a full-time basis and played competitive fixtures within the Spanish Second Division and Copa del Rey during the 2017-2018 season. Throughout the data-collection period, the team competed in 17 official matches, which often meant that the team played 1 match per week.”. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254655.r004
1 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Moacir Marocolo, Editor In-season training responses and perceived wellbeing and recovery status in professional soccer players PONE-D-21-01752R2 Dear Dr. Mateus, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Moacir Marocolo, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #3: No ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #3: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254655.r005
Formally Accepted
6 Jul 2021 Acceptance Letter - Moacir Marocolo, Editor PONE-D-21-01752R2 In-season training responses and perceived wellbeing and recovery status in professional soccer players Dear Dr. Mateus: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr Moacir Marocolo Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254655.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .