https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5312-861X
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJanuary 28, 2022 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-22-02783Eccentric overload exercises versus loaded half squats for basketball players: which is better for induction of postactivation potentiation?PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sun, 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, and especially the important issues regarding statistical analyses. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 09 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:
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, Laurent Mourot 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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 3. 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 4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: General comment The study aimed to test the influence of exercise modality (eccentric overloading or squatting) and intensity (light, moderate and heavy) on post-activation performance enhancement (and not PAP) in CMJ and sprint. The experimental protocol contain several bias that should be taken into account to appropriately discuss the findings. First, the authors implemented a cross-over designed for the conditioning exercise, but not for the load, which lead therefore to a progressive increase in load for all subjects. It would have therefore been more suitable to randomize the allocation order for load in order to avoid any adaptive effects from the load on the PAPE response. Then, the intensity and volume of the two conditioning protocols differed which could results into different workload between the two protocol. In absence of quantification of the total workload during exercise, it is difficult to account for this effect on the PAPE effect. Finally, this study thought to improve recommendation about conditioning protocol to improve jump performance in basketball players. However, the context of these recommendations should be precise in the context of this activity; that is, whether such protocol should be implemented at the onset of a match (but with likely confounding effects from sprint actions performed), or during training to optimize training effectiveness. Furthermore, due to the multiple conditions (allocation group, exercise and intensity), the protocol and the results section are difficult to understand, and needs to be thoroughly amend or rephrase to improve this particularly limiting point. Many sentences are therefore confusing and scramble understanding of the results. Finally, some elements are lacking to support statement provided particularly in the discussion section. Authors should therefore strengthen their rational in order to avoid sections that only describe findings of the present or previous studies, but provide more elements to understand the present findings and conclude on recommendations. Please find below specific comments : 1. L 52: Undefined previously, please define 2. L 54-55: "Could increase PPO to a certain extent" is an inapropriate statement to present results. Please rephrase or present the magnitude of this increase. 3. L 58: performances were only assessed at different precise timing after exercise, and not during different period after exercise termination. Therefore, I suggest using time-points rather than time windows. 4. L 67-70: Please conform to the findings of the cited reference (and others e.g.; Blazevich and Babault, 2019; DOI: 10.3389/FPHYS.2019.01359), by mentioning the difference between electrically-evoked and voluntary improvements in performance. With reference to the area of interest of the present study, authors monitored PAPE and not PAP 5. L 72-74: Only referring to phosphorylation of MHC or change in fascicle pennation angle is really scarce in light of others potentials factors driving improvement in voluntary performance (e.g. muscle temperature, muscle blood flow), and particularly when focusing on eccentric mode of muscle action (e.g. neural factors). Please amend to provide a reliable overview of these mechanisms. 6. L 78: typing error : provided 7. L 80-81: Because squat exercise modality can induce a PAPE only in the lower limbs (in comparison to the upper limbs), I suggest the authors to precise this element in order to avoid misunderstanding by novice readers. 8. L 82-83: Please precise which parameters were improved in these studies (e.g. jump height, rate of force development, reaction time, maximal power, maximal speed, ...). Indeed, the conflicting findings about the factors improved by PAPE which depend upon the conditioning sequence should be avoid here. 9. L 85: "Has been pro" should be rephrase for a better understanding 10. L 96-100: Please also report the above-mentioned study (i.e. Norrbrand 2010) that reported similar improvement in MVC than the concentric training. A more reliable overview of the litterature, and the conflicting conclusions, should be drawn here. 11. L 101-103: Although scarce, please cite some references focusing on jumping performance (e.g. French et al., 2003, DOI: 10.1519/ 1533-4287(2003)017<0678:CIDEPF>2.0.CO;2) 12. L 116: It is unclear what are the short-term effects mentioned here. The authors stated a two-stages randomized cross-over study, lasting for 13 weeks. Therefore, are the short-term effects the acute effects following bouts of exercise, or the immediate effects of the training protocol tested at the end of the last bout? Should be precise. 13. L 116: The greater sprint performance could only be speculated here, and could therefore be mentioned as an expected finding at the end of the introduction section. I suggest the authors to rephrase this sentence in order to differentiate between the expected, and the actual findings of the protocol. 14. L 129: Rephrase as : and they were then informed about the EOL protocol. 15. L 130-131: Please provide additional explanations about the expected effects of the familiarization procedure for experienced subjects. 16. L 133-139: The procedure implemented to assess CMJ and sprint performance requires further supporting elements. Could the authors indicate for instance why they did not alternate the testing between CMJ and sprint? It could be suppose that the first 3 bouts of exercse (and particularly during the EOL protocol) induced some muscular impairments leading to bias the maximal performance during CMJ or sprint. Could the authors provide reliability measurements between sessions to account for this possible confounding factor? 17. L 139: Please add the time-delay allowed between the two sequences of this protocol. 18. Also, justify that the 1-week washout period is sufficient to alleviate the effects of the first protocol on the testing and effectiveness of the second sequence. (which seems unlikely). 19. L 149: I recommend the authors to avoid the excessive use of decimals and report the appropriate precision provided by the measurements they performed. For instance, rouding age to the nearest year as they ask to the participants, or report body-mass to the precision allowed by the body scale. 20. L 161: Should be : "subjects were asked to" 21. L 170: Please detail what are those "basic information" 22. L 178-180: Do the authors control for the reproducibility between the two trials to ensure the validity of the calculated mean? If so, please provide the accepted range between trials to ensure two maximal performance. 23. L 181: What was the recovery modality allowed to the subjects between the different time points? 24. L 191-193: Please provide the height of the photoelectric cells. 25. L 205: In accordance with one of my previous comment regarding the lack of details about the "basic information" recorded by means of body scale, the authors should provide additional information regarding the method used to calculate body surface area. 26. L 207-209: Please precise whether the pace was controlled during the downward phase of the half squat. If so, this information should be added to provide an estimate of the braking resistance applied by the subjects 27. L 214-215: It seems that the amount of repetitions per set is lacking here. Please amend. 28. L 225-227: Provide further explanations about the meaning one his one-way ANOVA. Indeed, your protocol implemented wo exercises and three modality. How could the authors therefore performed only a one-way ANOVA? 29. L 233-234: Statistical information are lacking in figures (significant different and not only ANOVA F or p values) forcing the readers to back-and-forth between figures and text. It could be therefore suitable to add the calculated 95%CI on the graphs and symbols to indicate statistical differences. 30. L 240-243: The comparisons between time points and intensity for pre-HS and pre-EOL is unclear here. It is state in the protocol that each session differed from the other by the testing protocol (HS or EOL) or the intensity (low, med and high). Please amend therefore to understand which variables were compared here. 31. L 249: Could you please indicate the degree of freedom for the F value of the ANOVA. In addition, I suggest to avoid the appelation of week1, 2 or 3, should rather precise the intensity that is one of the main independent variable. 32. L 252-253: This sentence requires rephrasing to avoid misinterpretation. Under the current version, this sentence would means that the performance at PRE is significantly related to measurements made at POST. However, it seems that this analysis was not performed, and is not of primary importance for this study. 33. L 263-265: It could be suitable to report the magnitude of the significant changes in the text to allow the reader a better adoption of the findings. 34. L 277-278: This third comparison lacks of support here, and should be presented in the statistics section. 35. L 282-283: This sentence is misconducting here since the mention of rest interval suggest that post-measurements would be presented, while it seems that comparison is performed on PRE measurements. Please amend and/ or correct. 36. L 284-285: Please state clearly this difference in the text 37. L 288-290: Again this sentence is misconducting, since is could be understand that the PRE-HS value is significantly correlated to PPO. Please rephrase. 38. L 333-335: How could the authors state that the sprint speed of PRE-EOL could be lower than PRE-HS at 9-min rest interval? Once again this sentence is conflicting here and needs to be rephrase. 39. L 342-344: Interactions rather revealed significant differences than influenced results. Please rephrase for a better understanding. 40. L 361-362: It would be suitable to differentiate between stretch shortening cycle occurring during running or CMJ for instance and the succession of eccentric and concentric phase with no (or only a few) storage of passive elastic energy (e.g. squatting). Flywheel resistance training used in the present study is indeed really different from plyometric mode of muscle action, and relies therefore not on the same mechanical (e.g. paralelle or serie elastic component) and neural elements (e.g. stretch reflex). Please amend and rephrase. 41. L 369-370: This aim differ from the scientific question addressed in the introduction section, and is therefore not supported by the rational. Please ensure consistency about the objectives of this study throughout the manuscript. 42. L 398-404: There are contradictory findings mentioned here between improvement in CMJ height and PPO due to EOL training, while non-statistical difference is noted. Please based your statement on the statistical findings and not graphical reading. 43. L 428-430: This section is quite descriptive and lacks of elements to explain the absence of significant improvement in this study. The authors should strenghten their discussion and provide scientific elements explaining their findings. Such approach would benefits to coaches in order to better understand how they could improve their intervention. 44. L438-440: I acknowledge that jumping performance is important for basketball players. However, as it is mentioned previously, the effect of PAPE is only transitory and would not be effective during an entire match. Furthermore, players runs from the onset of the match that can therefore offset the effectiveness of a conditioning protocol on jumping performance. Therefore the limit related to the activity would rather stands upon the practicability of this protocol. Authors should therefore provide recommendations or perspectives about how to applied such protocol for performance improvement. That is, should a PAPE protocol should be implement before a match (with a relatively low efficiency given the other actions, see above), or to used during training session in order to improve performance during exercise in order to improve training effectiveness? 45. L 447-449: This sentence contradicts the first one of the conclusion section. Please ensure coherence about the presence or absence of PAPE phenomenom in the present study. This question remains unclear while reading this section. 46. L 449-452: Both squatting and flywheel are based on eccentric-concentric contractions here. It appear therefore obvious to precise more specifically the different exercise modalities (e.g.; phase duratin, intensity, ...). Reviewer #2: Abstract • Line 46-47: not clear, rephrase and explain clearly the design. • Lines 49-51: not useful in an abstract. • Lines 52-58: there is no consistency between the methods and the results. The dependent parameters were not listed, nor the extent of the changes was reported. Please rewrite this section in accordance with what reported in the methods • The last sentence makes no sense since every movement is a combination of concentric/eccentric actions. Introduction • Lines 103-106: It is not clear what “long season” means here. Please explain. • Overall, why half-squat and not other squat variations? Please elaborate. Methods • Line 195: PAP or PAPE? • The statistical analysis should be rerun: it is not clear to me why two different two-way analysis were performed instead of a three-way. This is a major point that should be addressed. Therefore, I have stopped my review here, since the results should be rewritten accordingly. Reviewer #3: General comments: This study compared the post-activation performance enhancement induced by two forms of resistance exercise (flywheel and barbell half squats) and the effects of such training protocols over a period of weeks. The authors should be congratulated for performing a cross-over multiple week investigation. The study, and particularly the longitudinal nature, are a useful addition to the literature. However, there are a number of issues that I wish to raise. The most significant of these is the fact that it is not clear exactly what statistical analyses have been performed due to some confusion in the wording. Many assumptions or justifications inherent in the analyses are also missing. These factors make it difficult to follow and assess aspects of the Results and Discussion. I have mentioned some other specific comments, too. Comment 1: The manuscript refers to post-activation potentiation (PAP) throughout – attributed to phosphorylation of myosin regulatory light chains. However, this ignores the recent body of literature questioning these mechanisms and time-courses and suggesting that post-activation performance enhancement would be a more appropriate name. Please see https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.01359 and related literature for example. The Introduction as a whole is quite short and missing some key literature. Comment 2: The terms used to describe the exercises are quite vague. For example, an eccentric overload could be achieved in many different ways and a ‘loaded half squat’ could also be achieved in different ways. In fact, it could be argued that both exercises are ‘loaded half squats’. Comment 3: The loads used for the barbell squat are individual-specific (a percentage of 1RM) but the flywheel inertias are not. This warrants further consideration or discussion. Comment 4: In the statistical analysis section, it is stated that one-way repeated measures ANOVAs were performed. However, a few lines later on talk about interaction effects, which suggest that at least a two-way ANOVA was performed. It is therefore unclear what statistical analyses were performed – how many ANOVAs, what factors, and what conditions or intensities are in each. It is also mostly unclear whether the two phases are being tested separately or with all data combined (and why). The inherent assumptions in your statistical model also need to be considered and discussed. For example, are you assuming that the two lowest intensities (flywheel and barbell) are equivalent and the two highest are equivalent, etc.? Should you control for baseline values and/or session number or any other variables? You should also report confidence intervals (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2020.1782555 ). Other recommendations in that editorial such as reporting exact p-values should also be followed. These factors make it difficult to follow and assess aspects of the Results and Discussion. Perhaps the Discussion would be easier to follow if it followed the narrative of the tests – i.e. one ANOVA at a time and discussing the main and interaction effects / post-hocs clearly. Specific comments: Authors: It is not clear how there can be three co-first authors. Short title: Compared to what? Data availability statement: I suggest that you upload the data alongside the manuscript for readers and reviewers in line with journal policy. Abstract: Line 52: PPO should be defined. Peak power output? It would also be useful to include some statistical results within the abstract. Introduction: Lines 74-75: This statement is too dramatic/ambitious and should be reduced in everity. Line 95: Other studies have investigated the relationship between flywheel moment of inertia and velocity or power (concentric and eccentric) during flywheel half squats – see https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1860472 This is also important on line 217 where the statement about ‘different components of muscle power’ is quite vague and could be supported more. Lines 101-106: Although not on jumping sports, quite a few PAPE studies have focused on vertical or horizontal jumps. These have investigated the effect of factors such as the flywheel inertia, number of sets, etc. on flywheel PAPE. For some examples: https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2019-0476 (review paper) https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003214 (effect of inertia) https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2019-0411 (effect of volume) https://doi.org/10.3390/sports9010005 (effect of inertia and jump direction on ground reaction force parameters) Methods: Lines 118-120: It’s unclear how many sessions this is in total. How many familiarisation sessions were performed if any? See https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2017-0282 but be aware of the use of magnitude based inference (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2020.1782555 ) Line 148: Why 12 participants? This number should be justified. See https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.33267 Line 161 and elsewhere: I suggest being consistent with ‘participants’ or ‘subjects’ – the section is called ‘Participants’ so it would be good to stick with this. Lines 178 and 188: Why were two trials averaged? Why two and why an average? Lines 185-186: How were these parameters calculated? There are multiple possible methods for some of them. Line 192: What was the starting position for the sprint? In line with the timing gate or slightly behind? Line 201: Why 3 sets x 6 reps? The volume PAPE paper mentioned earlier could be used here, but it is important to justify these choices. Lines 208-209: Were participants instructed to resist throughout the eccentric phase or only in a certain portion of it? Lines 232-233: These should be reworded with signs such as ‘greater than or equal to’ to ensure that there are no gaps. For example, 1.195 and 1.995 currently have no category. Results: I suggest adding tables to make the results clearer. Discussion: Line 368: ‘shown’ may be better than ‘proved’ – to show more uncertainty. It would be good to re-summarise the main overall results early in the Discussion. Lines 369-370: More justification is needed for why basketballers might be different to other populations and why results might not continue over a season. Line 382: What is meant by ‘ground-lifting’? Lines 384-387: Some of the studies I mentioned above (e.g. the effects of inertia on PAPE) may be useful here. Likewise, for lines 390-391 where the differential effects of peak power / velocity / force are discussed. Line 397: Could this be controlled for within the statistical analysis? Line 411: Was this ‘tendency’ significant? If not then it should not be discussed as an effect. The same applies in line 448 (if not then this should not be part of the conclusion). Lines 418/420/421 – consistency needed around minutes / -minutes / min ********** 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 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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-22-02783R1Flywheel eccentric overload exercises versus barbell half squats for basketball players: which is better for induction of post-activation potentiation enhancement?PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sun, 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. Despite significant improvements, methodological clarifications need to be added to the current manuscript, as well as approriate answer to reviewers' comments. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 03 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:
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, Laurent Mourot Section Editor PLOS ONE [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 #3: (No Response) ********** 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 #3: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: No ********** 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 #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 #1: Yes 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 #1: I thank the authors for considering my comments that enable significant improvements in the manuscript. It remains however some misunderstandings from my first revision that should be corrected before publication. Please find below these elements : Abstract L 58-59, 60: My previous comment about the magnitude of PPO increase considered the value of the increase (in % pre for instance) rather than the effect size of the statistical analysis. This would better inform the readers about the main findings of this study in the abstract. L 145-148: I understand the statement of the authors considering the greater risk to induce muscle impairments with a 30-m maximal sprint. However, the repeated bout effect associated to eccentric strength training impact the magnitude and etiology of the experimental training’s residual effects. Therefore, it is conceivable that the PAPE effects observed for sprint performance after 3 days of training will not represent the effects that would be observed after the first occurrence to eccentric strength training. I suggest the authors to add this limit in the present article. L 171: “basic information” is useless and could be remove to avoid excessive wordings (e.g. “participants’ height, age, weigth,…” is satisfactory). Results: L296-299: it seems that my comment in R1 was not well understood by the authors, which contribute also to confusion in the abstract. By “amplitude” I would say, could the authors provide the percentage increase (or decrease) in participants’ performance? The effect size refers to the power of the statistical analysis, but that is of moderate importance for practical application of the protocol from coaches and strength conditioners. Please add here, and in the abstract, the % change from PRE for your values. L 380-381: again my comment in revision #1 was not understand. The statistical results of the ANOVA describe the differences observed in your study. This analysis (and the interaction provided here) made a posteriori could not “affect” or “influence” the sprint speed. The results of the ANOVA showed differences between the post-EOL and post-HS groups. Please correct carefully. Reviewer #3: General comments: I previously stated that, among other issues, it was unclear what statistical analyses had been performed. The previously recommended revisions have mostly been addressed/clarified, although a few areas remain difficult to interpret. Comment 1: I still do not believe it is appropriate to consider low/medium/high intensity as being equivalent between the two exercises. For example, what rationale is there to assume that 40% and 0.015 are both low and that 80% and 0.075 are both high.? It is also worth noting that 80% is double 40% but 0.075 is five times 0.015. This may affect the statistical analysis used, but if not then it should at least be discussed as an assumption upon which the results rest. Comment 2: In the statistical analysis section, it is much improved but still could be clearer exactly what variables are being assessed in what combinations/conditions. I suggest taking more words to spell this out in great detail. For example, the one-way ANOVA on line 247-248 can’t be the 2x2 pre/post HS/EOL and also can’t be the 2x1 pre/post or HS/EOL, so it’s not clear where the one-way ANOVA comes from. Generally, the statistics are easier to follow in the Results section because each individual result is discussed one at a time. Comment 3: Despite changing to ‘barbell half squat’ and ‘flywheel eccentric overload’, the abbreviations HS and EOL are used. As previously stated, both are half squats and there are many ways of eliciting an eccentric overload. I suggest simply using the terms ‘barbell’ and ‘flywheel’ or including B and F in the abbreviations if necessary. Comment 4: I also suggest avoiding the terms pre and post as they do not refer to the pre and post PAPE effect, which is confusing. Comment 5: When referring to peak power or impulse, in many cases it is not stated whether this is during a jump or a sprint. This should always be clear in case a reader only reads specific sections. Specific comments: Title: This should be ‘performance’, nit ‘potentiation’ for PAPE Lines 23-24: The authors should be commended for making the statistical results available in full, although this should not be stated as making the underlying data available. Line 59: The ‘stages’ have not been explained yet so this is hard for someone to follow if only reading the abstract. These stages are called phases elsewhere, so it should be consistent. Line 198: What method is used to calculate these? I know it is from Smart Jump, but readers should be told what method is used for the calculations. Lines 254-255: There are still gaps – e.g. 0.5995. I suggest e.g. 0.2 ≤ small < 0.6; 0.6 ≤ moderate < 1.2. Lines 260-265: this information should be in the participants section of the Methods. Line 267: No criteria were given in the Methods for determining moderate or excellent reliability. Line 276: Please do not say ;tended to increase’ if it was not significant. ********** 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 #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. |
| Revision 2 |
|
PONE-D-22-02783R2Flywheel eccentric overload exercises versus barbell half squats for basketball players: which is better for induction of post-activation performance enhancement?PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sun, 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 all the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 29 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:
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, Laurent Mourot Section Editor PLOS ONE [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 #3: (No Response) ********** 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: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No 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 #1: No Reviewer #3: 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 #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 #1: Abstract: L 53: I suggest the authors to precise what time points are considered here? Is it only immediately after exercise, or at all time points? The sentence is misconducting. L 57-59: was there a difference between FEOL and BHS at baseline? Please amend. L60-62: the use of stage I and II is unclear here, and does not refer to one of the objectives stated previously. I suggest to remove this information in the abstract to make it clearer. L 64-65: this sentence is unclear. If no change on sprint speed was observed after the two training protocols, therefore there was no effect. Please rephrase to make this sentence less confuse. L 70: would you mean FEOL training? Introduction L 79: I suggest to consider rephrasing into “enhancement in explosive sport performance” L 93: replace for “contractility” or “contractile function” depending on the meaning of your sentence Methods L 130: “and in stage-II, they crossed over…” L 135: “were set before training, …” L 169: it is unclear whether the 6 players dropped out because of injuries occurring during the experimental protocol, or were not included because of the inclusion criteria (line 158). Please be consistent throughout the paragraph. L 179: as mentioned in a previous revision, the InBody 370 is a body composition analyzer, and could therefore not measure participant’s height. Please indicate the scale used to measure this variable. L 198: words are lacking here, following what? L 224: “On the GO signal” could be better Results The same problem still remains in this third version of the manuscript about interpretation of the statistical analysis. Authors should carefully translate their result, and mentioned difference, increase or decrease when statistics prove it. When no statistical difference is findings, therefore there is no increase or decrease of the variables, even if the numbers are not the same. This misconducting makes the results fallacious and decrease the quality of the manuscript. A real effort should be provided here to describe clearly and decently these findings. Table 1: “indicates significant difference” or “differ significantly “. Under the present form this sentence is unclear Discussion L 422-426: the summary of the main findings is unclear. The first sentence states that no performance improvement was noted for CMJ and sprint after the two protocols. The second sentence argues that FEOL training can increase jump height to a greater extent that BHS. These sentences, under the present form, are therefore contradictory. Would the authors say that jump heights at 3, 6 9 and 12 min were greater for FEOL than BHS? If yes, then rephrase to correspond. L 434-435: please state clearly how this performance could be impacted? Improvement? Decrease? L 450: as state previously for results section, in absence of statistical difference, no difference exists. Please correct to correspond. Reviewer #3: The majority of my previous comments have been addressed. Thank you. I only have two remaining comments: Comment 1: Thank you for your response regarding the low/medium/high intensity for each exercise. I understand that they are not intended to be equivalent intensities between exercises. However, your use of an ANOVA may dictate that they are considered to be equal. For example, does this statistical model assume that you have 3 intensities (low/medium/high) at each of 2 exercises, and then compare? The main and especially the interaction effects may depend on this assumption, so it is worth stating/discussing. If this test is not performed then it is less of an issue, but perhaps giving the exact intensity in tables and results would be better than referring to two different ‘low’, two different ‘medium’, etc. is they are not equivalent. Comment 2: Please check your equations in lines 210-212. I get different answers using these compared to standard equations. It is also not clear to me why flight time is divided by 1000 (instead of 2). If it is recorded in ms instead of s then this should be clear. I suggest indicating that the PPO is an estimate and not a measurement. If possible, I also suggest using g as 9.81 instead of 9.8. ********** 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 #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. |
| Revision 3 |
|
PONE-D-22-02783R3Flywheel eccentric overload exercises versus barbell half squats for basketball players: which is better for induction of post-activation performance enhancement?PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sun, 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. Statistical considerations still persist and it is of the uptmost importance to properly take into account reviewer's comments. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 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:
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, Laurent Mourot Section Editor PLOS ONE [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: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) 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 #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: 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: (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 #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: My previously recommended revisions have again mostly been addressed. I have one comment remaining which I believe represents a major assumption within the manuscript. The authors recognise this but it should be made clear throughout the article. You have confirmed within your response that the statistical analysis treats both exercises as having equal low, medium, or high resistance. The results are therefore inherently based on the degree to which the intensities are well matched. You recognised this within your reviewer response, but I believe it should be made clear throughout all sections of the manuscript so that (potentially uninformed) readers can make their own interpretation of the results based on this assumption. ********** 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 #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. |
| Revision 4 |
|
Flywheel eccentric overload exercises versus barbell half squats for basketball players: which is better for induction of post-activation performance enhancement? PONE-D-22-02783R4 Dear Dr. Sun, 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, Laurent Mourot Section Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
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 .