PONE-D-21-37878Relationships between perceived internal training loads and psychometric wellness during overseas futsal training campsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kuo,

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, address point-to-point all reviewers' issues.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 17 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,

Luca Paolo Ardigò, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: 

 (This work was supported by a grant VGHUST96-P1-06 from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, and a grant MOST-103-2410-H-075-001 from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.)

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

(The authors would like to thank the head coach Adil Amarante, team members, and U-20 Chinese Taipei futsal team players who volunteered for this study.

This work was supported by a grant VGHUST96-P1-06 from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, and a grant MOST-103-2410-H-075-001 from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.)

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

(This work was supported by a grant VGHUST96-P1-06 from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, and a grant MOST-103-2410-H-075-001 from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.)

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please, address point-to-point all reviewers' issues.

[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: No

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: PONE-D-21-37878

ABSTRACT

Line 47: maybe consider rethinking the use of “training load”. I recommend reading the article “Misuse of the term ‘load’ in sport and exercise science” - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1440244021002127

Line 50: recovery status – how the process will be monitored? Maybe more detail here.

Line 53: add the eligibility criteria for the included players

Line 55: maybe add the details of the wellness questionnaire or the items assessed.

Lines 57-61: add statistical values to support the statements

INTRODUCTION

Line 93: there is a perceived measure of internal training load? Or perceived effort/exertion? CR-10 Borg measure the perceived intensity and not load. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1440244021002127

Lines 93-94: support the statement about the cognitive awareness

Lines 94-96: Maybe some description about validity and reliability of the scale can be good.

Line 98: add examples of wellness questionnaires, validity and reliability. Which questionnaire?

Lines 99-100: maybe consider this systematic review - Duignan, C., Doherty, C., Caulfield, B., & Blake, C. (2020). Single-Item Self-Report Measures of Team-Sport Athlete Wellbeing and Their Relationship With Training Load: A Systematic Review. Journal of Athletic Training, 55(9), 944-953.

METHODS

Line 124: contextualize the periods of data collection (i.e., early season, mid season, end season) and the exact dates

Line 135: add the a priori sample size using G*Power or a similar software

Line 144: how many times the same player participated in the OTC? Maybe a table with the N of sessions per each players would be important

Line 165: add the exact question made to the players prior to score is provided (example: how intense was the session?)

Line 178: same as above (i.e., exact question) for the case of wellness.

RESULTS

Tables: add p-value as well and not the magnitude-based inference.

The figure has a low-resolution. Must be improved the quality.

DISCUSSION

Generally well-written. I would like to suggest more discussion about further research and more practical recommendations for using not only in OTC contexts.

Reviewer #2: General comments:

The study investigated the effects of different OTC on TL and well being measures as well as their relationships. The study is of interest and the authors did good job. There are some issues to be addressed, and a general English revision is required before the formal acceptance of the paper.

Specific comments

Abstract

L49: the authors said that the relationship between TL and recovery status has not been established during short-term overseas training camps (OTC). However, previous study (Lu et al., 2018) has investigated such relationship during OTC? Any clarifications? Please remove it or just say that it was not extensively investigated to not neglect previous research.

- Please add effect size’s values for different comparisons and r values for correlations.

Introduction

This part is well written by the authors.

Why the authors did not report that one previous study also investigated the relationship between TL and recovery state in OTC (https://www.termedia.pl/Training-load-and-recovery-status-during-a-short-term-overseas-training-camp-in-Taiwan-futsal-players,132,35932,0,0.html). I think it is important for your paper to clear for readers what is different from this one and this strengthens your rationale.

Materials and Methods

Participants

L138: “called up” may be appropriate to change to “recruited “

- A sample size calculation is required here, please add it.

- Please provide psychometric properties for measures used

Discussion

The discussion is written well.

Figure

I would ask the authors to change the figure as it is not clear.

**********

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: No

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.

PONE-D-21-37878R1Relationships between perceived measures of internal load and wellness status during overseas futsal training campsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kuo,

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, one further effort to address Reviewer 1's minor issues.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 02 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,

Luca Paolo Ardigò, 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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please, one further effort to address Reviewer 1's minor issues.

[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 #1: (No Response)

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: No

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: ABSTRACT

Line 49: detail the meaning of “recovery status”

Lines 51-52: would be better to add a description of the outcomes

Line 53: add the sample of training sessions and matches analyzed.

Lines 55-56: add the outcomes coming from the questionnaire.

Lines 57-61: add statistical values to support the statements.

INTRODUCTION

Lines 73-74: maybe add some details regarding the typical locomotor demands and intermittency of them.

Lines 94-96: Borg’s scale does not allow measuring training load. In fact, is a measure of training intensity. Training load is a combination of intensity and volume.

Lines 93-98: it would be important to strengthen the rationale of this paragraph with the Gabbett, T. J., Nassis, G. P., Oetter, E., Pretorius, J., Johnston, N., Medina, D., ... & Ryan, A. (2017). The athlete monitoring cycle: a practical guide to interpreting and applying training monitoring data. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 51(20), 1451-1452.

The terms wellness and recovery status are not the same. Recovery status involves more than well-being measures, namely the functional status. I would like to suggest avoiding the term recovery status.

The introduction section synthetizes the current state of the art. Nerveless, some references can help to better contextualizing these sections (e.g., Almeida, et. al. 2019.Coach decision-making in Futsal: from preparation to competition. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport.; Sarmento, H., Bradley, P., Travassos, B. (2015). The Transition from Match Analysis to Intervention: Optimising the Coaching Process in Elite Futsal. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport)

METHODS

Line 124: a timeline would be important adding information about the occurrence of the events.

Table 1: would be important to add information about how many training camps occurred for each type.

Line 122: sRPE was not introduced before

Lines 171 and 178: add the final main outcomes used for further data treatment. Moreover, add information about how statistical procedures were conducted (e.g., using average of training camps? Average of each day of training camps?)

Line 182: add the test to measure the homogeneity. Both were observed?

RESULTS

Figure 1. resolution of the figure is low.

Line 228: add in-text description of the information about statistical values associated with the linear regression.

DISCUSSION

Generally well-written. However, future research should be described after the study limitations.

Reviewer #2: I congratulate the authors as they addressed almost of my comments satisfactorly. I recommend the paper to be accepted.

**********

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: No

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.

Relationships between perceived measures of internal load and wellness status during overseas futsal training camps

PONE-D-21-37878R2

Dear Dr. Kuo,

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,

Luca Paolo Ardigò, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Congratulations for the interesting work.

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

**********

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

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: 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: 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 #1: 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: I would like to congratulate the authors by this revised version of the paper. All ny comments has been taking into account by the authors.

**********

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: No