Soccer academy practitioners’ perceptions and application of bio-banding

Chris Towlson; Demi Jo Watson; Sean Cumming; Jamie Salter; John Toner

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274079

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 7, 2022
25 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Hugo Miguel Borges Sarmento, Editor PONE-D-22-19101Soccer academy practitioners’ perceptions and application of bio-bandingPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Towlson, 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 Sep 08 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, Hugo Miguel Borges Sarmento 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 amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns: a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study? b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure. 3. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. [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: N/A 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: The paper about bio-banding summarizes results that have already been published using a questionnaire. Although I recognize the merits of this paper, there are some important points that should be clarified. The results were based on 25 participants using a questionnaire. The discussion is not easy to follow and needs to be adjusted. [1] Line 75-79: Age at peak height velocity is an indicator of maturity timing and not status. Obviously, some studies use APHV to classify players as early, on time and late. However, the authors in the current study should not state that players who attained peak height velocity earlier are early maturing players. Briefly, maturity status is not equivalent to maturity timing. Please, adjust. [2] Line 83. How do the authors assume that late maturing players are equally technically talented? [3] The first paragraph is too long. Please, summarize the main aspects: sports selection. Two important papers should be included in the introduction. The second one uses a valid indicator of maturity status – skeletal age. Konarski JM, Krzykała M, Skrzypczak M, et al. Characteristics of select and non-select U15 male soccer players. Biol Sport. 2021;38(4):535-544. Malina RM, Peña Reyes ME, Eisenmann JC, Horta L, Rodrigues J, Miller R. Height, mass and skeletal maturity of elite Portuguese soccer players aged 11-16 years. J Sports Sci. 2000;18(9):685-693. [4] Line 91: maturity offset is not APHV. References 9-11 are estimations of APHV. [5] Line 95: Does maturity offset have been used to group players as pre-PHV, circa-PHV, post-PHV? Is this correct? [6] Line 113: I do not agree with this sentence: “currently unclear to what extent bio-banding is being used, how it is being used, and for what purpose.” The authors cited the paper on Sports Medicine (ref.23) – clearly, it explained the main issues related to bio-banding. [7] Did the authors calculate the power sampling? Why 25 participants? [8] Was the questionnaire validated? [9] Line 612-615: Again, is not status. Why do the authors cite Koziel and Malina? The paper is not about a prediction. [10] Line 623: I do not understand why the authors cited these references and stated “greater criterion biological maturity”. Towlson is a review and Salter only compared equations. Basically, none of these references tested the validity of equations. Please, adjust. [11] The discussion is too long and not easy to follow, please summarize the main points. Reviewer #2: The subject matter is relevant to readers of this journal, the rationale is consistent, and the approach is novel. Also, the paper is very well written. Therefore, I think that this manuscript represents a worthwhile and significant contribution to the body of literature. Please consider ta small detail; In the full title, short title and abstract authors use the term “soccer” while along the text authors reported to the main study object as “football”. Please homogenize. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274079.r001
Revision 1
31 Jul 2022 Author Response Reviewer #1: The paper about bio-banding summarizes results that have already been published using a questionnaire. Although I recognize the merits of this paper, there are some important points that should be clarified. The results were based on 25 participants using a questionnaire. The discussion is not easy to follow and needs to be adjusted. We thank reviewer 1 for the comments. We are particularly appreciative for their eye for detail. We feel the feedback given here was useful and improved the paper. [1] Line 75-79: Age at peak height velocity is an indicator of maturity timing and not status. Obviously, some studies use APHV to classify players as early, on time and late. However, the authors in the current study should not state that players who attained peak height velocity earlier are early maturing players. Briefly, maturity status is not equivalent to maturity timing. Please, adjust. Thank you for this feedback and guidance. We completely agree, apologise for this oversight and have adjusted the statements according to reflect this feedback. “The peak of accelerated growth in stature is typically referred to as peak height velocity (PHV) [10-13], and is often used as a growth landmark in which to assess maturity timing of adolescent soccer players [6, 14-17]. Using PHV as an identifiable reference point to assess player maturity timing is of relevance and importance to academy practitioners, given that players who undergo PHV earlier (i.e., achieve PHV earlier than peers) are often characterised as possessing temporary, enhanced stature, body-mass and key physical fitness (i.e., speed, power) characteristics are typically over-represented within academy programmes [3-5].” [2] Line 83. How do the authors assume that late maturing players are equally technically talented? Thank you for this comment. We do not assume later maturing players are equally talented. “Such selection bias and playing behaviour are often to the detriment of later maturing players, who may well be equally technically talented, but are less likely afforded a fair playing environment in which to demonstrate their ability” [3] The first paragraph is too long. Please, summarize the main aspects: sports selection. Two important papers should be included in the introduction. The second one uses a valid indicator of maturity status – skeletal age. Konarski JM, Krzykała M, Skrzypczak M, et al. Characteristics of select and non-select U15 male soccer players. Biol Sport. 2021;38(4):535-544. Malina RM, Peña Reyes ME, Eisenmann JC, Horta L, Rodrigues J, Miller R. Height, mass and skeletal maturity of elite Portuguese soccer players aged 11-16 years. J Sports Sci. 2000;18(9):685-693. We have reduced the word count in the introduction and opening paragraphs. Thank you for alerting us to these papers. We have duly cited them. [4] Line 91: maturity offset is not APHV. References 9-11 are estimations of APHV. Thank you for raising this. We have adjusted the statement accordingly to reflect the cited references “Criterion18 measures for identifying maturation status are rarely available within applied sporting environments. Therefore, maturity offset (i.e., age at PHV – decimal age), age at PHV 10-12 or percentage of final adult height (PAH) 19 methods are often used to estimate maturation status 20.” [5] Line 95: Does maturity offset have been used to group players as pre-PHV, circa-PHV, post-PHV? Is this correct? Yes, this is correct. That said, we have added greater context to this statement. “Bio-banding is the re-categorisation of adolescent athletes from chronological aged-ordered groupings into maturation specific groups (i.e., pre-PHV, circa-PHV or post-PHV or thresholds of percentage adult height24-31) with the assumed objective to reduce the large within-group variations ensued by individual variations in the timing of PHV across a specific age group.” [6] Line 113: I do not agree with this sentence: “currently unclear to what extent bio-banding is being used, how it is being used, and for what purpose.” The authors cited the paper on Sports Medicine (ref.23) – clearly, it explained the main issues related to bio-banding. We do not fully agree with this point. The research conducted by Jamie Salter and colleagues does provide a nice understanding of how maturity status is measured and the how this is considered in relation to training load monitoring. However, this study does not exclusively address the extent to which bio-banding principles are applied in any reasonable detail. [7] Did the authors calculate the power sampling? Why 25 participants? No, we were unable to calculate power because we do not currently know how many practitioners are using bio-banding. The objective of this study was the aims were to examine the application of maturity status bio-banding within professional soccer academy programmes and understand the methods employed, the intended objectives, and the potential barriers to bio-banding. The extent in which bio-banding is being currently used was unknown prior to this study. [8] Was the questionnaire validated? The face and content validity of the survey was addressed via discussion with suitable academic staff (n = 3) who all possessed a relevant PhD and full-time academy soccer practitioners (n = 3) working within category 1 and 2 EPPP academy systems. as the items in the question here are being used for the purpose of information gathering, rather than the estimation of a specific construct, there was less need to consider are there aspects of psychometric integrity such as concurrent and predicted validity, structural validity, internal reliability or test retest reliability [9] Line 612-615: Again, is not status. Why do the authors cite Koziel and Malina? The paper is not about a prediction. Thank you. We have removed. [10] Line 623: I do not understand why the authors cited these references and stated “greater criterion biological maturity”. Towlson is a review and Salter only compared equations. Basically, none of these references tested the validity of equations. Please, adjust. We in part agree. However, the review paper by Towlson et al provides an in-depth overview of many studies which what have addressed the validity and reliability of such methods. We understand that citing the original papers here may be considered intuitive. That said, the point being made in the current paper relates to a discussion point that is concurrently addressing the issue of validity etc with all of the equations which are used to bio-band players. Therefore, we feel its appropriate to initially direct the readers to the narrative presented in this paper. [11] The discussion is too long and not easy to follow, please summarize the main points. Given the mixed-design of this study and the array of topics that bio-banding is associated with, we believe that the discussion in its current form is of an appropriate length. As this is the first study t explore the degree to which bio-banding is being used and perceived as effective, we also feel that is important that we take the opportunity to fully explore and communicate the practitioners perspectives. Reviewer #2: The subject matter is relevant to readers of this journal, the rationale is consistent, and the approach is novel. Also, the paper is very well written. Therefore, I think that this manuscript represents a worthwhile and significant contribution to the body of literature. Please consider ta small detail; In the full title, short title and abstract authors use the term “soccer” while along the text authors reported to the main study object as “football”. Please homogenize. Thank you for the positive feedback. We have amended the title. ________________________________________ Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274079.r002
23 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Hugo Miguel Borges Sarmento, Editor Soccer academy practitioners’ perceptions and application of bio-banding PONE-D-22-19101R1 Dear Dr. Towlson, 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, Hugo Miguel Borges Sarmento Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274079.r003
Formally Accepted
7 Dec 2022 Acceptance Letter - Hugo Miguel Borges Sarmento, Editor PONE-D-22-19101R1 Soccer academy practitioners’ perceptions and application of bio-banding Dear Dr. Towlson: 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. Hugo Miguel Borges Sarmento Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274079.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 .