A four-season study quantifying the weekly external training loads during different between match microcycle lengths in professional rugby league

James Parmley; Ben Jones; Tom Sawczuk; Dan Weaving

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263093

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 26, 2021
2 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Cristina Cortis, Editor PONE-D-21-33345A four-season study quantifying the weekly external training loads during different between match microcycle lengths in professional rugby league.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Parmley, 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. Based on the Reviewers' comments, we kindly invite to review the manuscript and send us a final version before we further process it. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 16 2022 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: https://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, Cristina Cortis, 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ. 3. 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. 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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: Yes ****** 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 ****** 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: Abstract No indication about the type of external load parameters/instruments can be known by reading the abstract section. Therefore, it could be provided brief notes about this fundamental information to make more readable this independent section. Introduction Lines 58-62. Actually, the sole use of internal training load could determine limits as well as the sole use external loads. Therefore, for a complete training monitoring, both training loads should be considered. For this point, the following and recent study should be considered in the Introduction (and Discussion) section. Lupo C., Ungureanu A.N., Boccia G., Licciardi A., Rainoldi A., Brustio P.R. (2021). Internal training load monitoring, notational and time motion analyses, psychometric status, and neuromuscular responses in elite rugby union. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 5;16(3):421-428. Discussion Lines 212-218. Limitations. The missing consideration of at least one internal training load parameters should be considered as a limitation. The grade of divergences between training leaded by different head coaches as well as practiced by different players would be better controlled by means of internal training load parameters such as RPE and Well-being perception (Lupo et al., 2021). Practical application Even though these results have been originated from a single team collection data (as fairly reported among limitations), more general practical applications could be provide to make the article more useful for physical trainers and coaches. Reviewer #2: General comments The paper aimed to quantify and compare commonly used external training load metrics between different between-match microcycle lengths; and to determine total weekly training load variation due to microcycle, individual and head coach. The paper is generally well written based on sound literature, the methods are clear, detailed and replicable, the results well-presented and discussed with respect to the literature. When using abbreviations, make sure you explain it first and then use the correct abbreviation throughout the paper. Introduction The authors kept in mind that this section is a development of the hypotheses of the study leading to the purpose of the investigation. The most relevant literature has been included, and I think the section flows with no major concerns. Materials and Methods Overall, methods and procedures are clear, detailed and replicable. Results and discussion I think the results and discussion sections of the study are well presented and discussed with respect to the current literature. Figure and tables Figures and tables should be clear and stand on their own. Make sure you check this. ****** 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:** Corrado Lupo Reviewer #2: 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.0263093.r001
Revision 1
17 Dec 2021 Author Response Reviewer #1: Abstract Comment: No indication about the type of external load parameters/instruments can be known by reading the abstract section. Therefore, it could be provided brief notes about this fundamental information to make more readable this independent section. Response: Thank you for your comment, the external load variables used within the study have been included in the abstract which now reads “Commonly used external training load variables including total-, high-speed- (5-7 m∙s-1), and sprint-distance (> 7 m∙s-1) alongside combined high acceleration and deceleration distance (> 2 m∙s-2). Which were also expressed relative to time were collected using microtechnology within a repeated measures design from 54 male rugby league players from one Super League team over four seasons. 4337 individual observations across ninety-one separate microcycles and six individual microcycle lengths (5 to 10 day) were included.” Introduction Comment: Lines 58-62. Actually, the sole use of internal training load could determine limits as well as the sole use external loads. Therefore, for a complete training monitoring, both training loads should be considered. For this point, the following and recent study should be considered in the Introduction (and Discussion) section. Lupo C., Ungureanu A.N., Boccia G., Licciardi A., Rainoldi A., Brustio P.R. (2021). Internal training load monitoring, notational and time motion analyses, psychometric status, and neuromuscular responses in elite rugby union. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 5;16(3):421-428. Response: Thank you for the comment. We agree that for a holistic view of training load, a combination of both internal and external load measurements is important. However, we feel that this statement does not quite fit in the introduction whereby we state that previous studies assessing microcycle length have been limited by the sole use of internal training load as this does not provide an understanding of the training prescribed during different length microcycles i.e., components of the external load (Impellizierri, Marcora and Coutts, 2019). Discussion Comment: Lines 212-218. Limitations. The missing consideration of at least one internal training load parameters should be considered as a limitation. The grade of divergences between training leaded by different head coaches as well as practiced by different players would be better controlled by means of internal training load parameters such as RPE and Well-being perception (Lupo et al., 2021). Response: Thank you for the comment, we agree that the inclusion of internal load variables may provide a more holistic view of training load thus has been listed as a limitation of the study. The section now reads “A second limitation of the study is the sole use of external load measurements, the inclusion of an internal load variable would provide a more holistic view of training load and variances between players and head coaches (Lupo et al., 2021)” Practical application Comment: Even though these results have been originated from a single team collection data (as fairly reported among limitations), more general practical applications could be provide to make the article more useful for physical trainers and coaches. Response: Thank you for the comment. We have added in practical applications for the microcycle comparison data but have stressed that the data may only be specific to the players and coaches of one club. Reviewer #2: General comments Comment: The paper aimed to quantify and compare commonly used external training load metrics between different between-match microcycle lengths; and to determine total weekly training load variation due to microcycle, individual and head coach. The paper is generally well written based on sound literature, the methods are clear, detailed and replicable, the results well-presented and discussed with respect to the literature. When using abbreviations, make sure you explain it first and then use the correct abbreviation throughout the paper. Introduction The authors kept in mind that this section is a development of the hypotheses of the study leading to the purpose of the investigation. The most relevant literature has been included, and I think the section flows with no major concerns. Materials and Methods Overall, methods and procedures are clear, detailed and replicable. Results and discussion I think the results and discussion sections of the study are well presented and discussed with respect to the current literature. Figure and tables Figures and tables should be clear and stand on their own. Make sure you check this. Response: Thank you for the comments they are greatly appreciated. We have ensured that all abbreviations have been explained previously in the paper namely “HDOP” in the methods section has now been explained as horizontal dilution of precision. We have also increased the resolution of figure 1 so now feel the figures and tables do stand on their own and the titles provide an adequate description to allow understanding. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263093.r002
12 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Cristina Cortis, Editor A four-season study quantifying the weekly external training loads during different between match microcycle lengths in professional rugby league. PONE-D-21-33345R1 Dear Dr. Parmley, 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, Cristina Cortis, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): All the comments have been successfully addressed and the paper can be now accepted for publication. 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 #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: I thank the authors for addressing all my comments and concerns. I have no more comments from my side. ****** 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 #1: Yes:** Corrado Lupo Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263093.r003
Formally Accepted
21 Jan 2022 Acceptance Letter - Cristina Cortis, Editor PONE-D-21-33345R1 A four-season study quantifying the weekly external training loads during different between match microcycle lengths in professional rugby league. Dear Dr. Parmley: 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 Prof. Dr. Cristina Cortis Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263093.r004

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 .