Inter e intra-variability of the best ranked teams: A network analysis in male high-level volleyball

Augusto Cezar Rodrigues Rocha; Lorenzo Laporta; Geovana Pires Rodrigues; Juracy da Silva Guimarães; Marcos Henrique do Nascimento; Marcelo Couto Jorge Rodrigues; Thiago José Leonardi; Claudio Andre Barbosa de Lira; Henrique de Oliveira Castro; Gustavo De Conti Teixeira Costa

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0280365

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 24, 2022
12 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Filipe Manuel Clemente, Editor PONE-D-22-23691Inter and intra-variability of the best ranked teams: a network analysis in male high-level VolleyballPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Costa, 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 the exciting research topic, the three reviewers highlighted that major modifications should come in methods and discussion. It is strongly recommended to strictly follow the reviewers' recommendations for improving the replicability and overall quality of the article. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 26 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, Filipe Manuel Clemente, PhD 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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: ● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript ● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) ● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) 3. Please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: "NO authors have competing interests" Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. Please upload a copy of Figure S1-S5, to which you refer in your text on page xx. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text. [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: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: No Reviewer #3: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors for their work. I send you some improvement suggestions. - In the introduction the problem must be presented clearly. Despite being referred to in a general way, I suggest that the problem is presented specifically. - Does it matter in the sample whether the observed matches correspond to the same stages of the competition? If not, I think it is important to clarify this situation and consider presenting results according to this contextual variable. The observed actions took into account contextual variables (eg opponent level), a fact that can lead to different presentations from those recorded. - The variables presented are part of an observational instrument. Did you go through any validation process? - It should also be mentioned how the training of the observers was carried out. - What are the procedures for testing inter- and intra-observer reliability? - Reliability values per variable must be presented. - I suggest the presentation of practical implications and the main conclusions of the study Reviewer #2: I would like to thank the editors for giving me the opportunity to read this interesting contribution. This contribution has the objective to analyze the offensive actions from the Complex I phase in volleyball by studying the network structure concerning inter- and intra-team relationships of the 2018 men's volleyball world championship data. This manuscript puts forward an interesting idea, but it lacks a proper methodological formalization. It is not clear how the networks have been constructed and the methodological part regarding the analysis needs to be addressed properly. In particular, the authors need to specify what kind of ties they are considering when constructing the network, highlighting what are the advantages of choosing the eigenvector centrality compared of other centrality indices. In addition, although the overall English level is acceptable, a thorough spell check is necessary. I suggest the authors to resubmit the manuscript after adding a more consistent methodological part. Reviewer #3: Despite the work carried out, the writing in English is very weak. Consequently, reading becomes difficult to understand. The Introduction does not have a logical sequence of thoughts and the Discussion can be improved according to the studies already carried out. Only with a major review of these two chapters, one could consider accepting the paper. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Fernando Santos Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280365.r001
Revision 1
15 Nov 2022 Author Response Response to reviewers General Comments 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming We modified all the text as PLOS ONE’s Style. 2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. We have proofread the entire text. 3. Please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. Information on ethics committee approval is available in the methods section. 4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: "NO authors have competing interests" Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. No authors have competing interests 5. Please upload a copy of Figure S1-S5, to which you refer in your text on page xx. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Done Reviewers' comments: 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. We have added all data in the submission. - In the introduction the problem must be presented clearly. Despite being referred to in a general way, I suggest that the problem is presented specifically. We put the problem more clearly. - Does it matter in the sample whether the observed matches correspond to the same stages of the competition? If not, I think it is important to clarify this situation and consider presenting results according to this contextual variable. The observed actions took into account contextual variables (eg opponent level), a fact that can lead to different presentations from those recorded. The matches observed were of the same opponent level, this information was added directly to the text: “A total of 2,743 offensive actions in Complex I were analyzed, from 22 matches of 2018 Men's Volleyball World Championship between the eight best ranked teams in this edition (Poland, Brazil, United States, Serbia, Italy, Russia, France and Netherlands respectively).” - The variables presented are part of an observational instrument. Did you go through any validation process? We utilized variables already validated and used in other studies (as referenced in each description). - It should also be mentioned how the training of the observers was carried out. - What are the procedures for testing inter- and intra-observer reliability? We followed the reviewer's recommendations directly in the text: “The analysis was performed by three volleyball coaches (more than five years of experience as performance analysts), trained by a high-level coach with more than 10 years of practice and with experience with national and regional teams. For this purpose, 5 games were analyzed together from a competition different from the sample (Final phase of the Men's Brazilian Superliga 20/21), and the final game (composed of 5 sets) was reanalyzed after 1 month to verify the intra and inter-observer reliability, thus resolving any doubts. For the final reliability test, 20% of the actions were reanalyzed, which is above the reference value of 10% [47]. Cohen's Kappa values were between 0.89 and 0.98 with the respective standard errors of 0.07 and 0.01 for the intraobserver analysis, and 1 with the standard error equal to 0 for the interobserver analysis. Such values are above the value recommended by the literature, which is 0.75 [48].” - Reliability values per variable must be presented. We added directly to the text. Reliability values for each variable were: Reception Zone (0,95), Reception Effect (0,89); Attack Tempo (0,95), Attack Type (0,98), Attack Zone (1,00), Play Position (1,00), Block Composition (0,98), Block Touch (0,98), and Attack Effect (0,98) - I suggest the presentation of practical implications and the main conclusions of the study Done It is not clear how the networks have been constructed and the methodological part regarding the analysis needs to be addressed properly. In particular, the authors need to specify what kind of ties they are considering when constructing the network, highlighting what are the advantages of choosing the eigenvector centrality compared of other centrality indices. Methodological process was better explained directly in the text. “Thus, the eigenvector centrality provides the relevant information about which nodes, or here as game variables used, are more influential in the network, taking into account the connectivity from other nodes that are also more central [49, 50], so, the Eigenvector Centrality depends not only on the number of its adjacent nodes, but also their interaction characteristics [40]. Node size were manipulated to highlight the magnitude of the eigenvector measure using the intrinsic units provided by Gephi Software (Between 300 to 1,500 arbitrary units). Edge corresponds the direct relationship between two nodes defined by number of connections, therefore, thicker edges correspond to a greater number of connections between two nodes [51]. Thus, the node size determines the visual variables contrast according to the eigenvector centrality and the edges thickness, in turn, reveals the weight (given by the number) of the connection directly and indirectly between the nodes [10, 24]. In addition, the Modularity Algorithm was used to detect community structure (8 communities with a cohesion value of 0.871) and the "Fruchterman Reigold" distribution (area 100000) was used organizing the nodes with the highest eigenvector centrality in the center of each subnet [52].” I suggest the authors to resubmit the manuscript after adding a more consistent methodological part. Following the recommendations of Reviewer #1, we changed and improved the methodological process of every session directly in the text Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280365.r002
6 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Filipe Manuel Clemente, Editor PONE-D-22-23691R1Inter and intra-variability of the best ranked teams: a network analysis in male high-level VolleyballPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Costa, 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 take a look and correct the references (e.g. 21, 23, and the underlining DOI of the references). Additionally, you should add figure in the reception zone variable (RZ). Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 20 2023 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, Filipe Manuel Clemente, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: Yes 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: The authors performed a review of the article as recommended by the reviewer. In my opinion the article is ready to be published. Reviewer #3: Dear Authors! First of all, congratulations for your effort regarding this second submission. In my opinion, the purpose of the study is adequately to the results and the methodology is now clear, according to previous sugestions. Please take a look and correct the references (e.g. 21, 23, and the underlining DOI of the references). Additionally, you should add figure in the reception zone variable (RZ). ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Fernando Santos Reviewer #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280365.r003
Revision 2
12 Dec 2022 Author Response Dear Editor in Chief, We submit an original research article entitled “Inter e intra variability of the best ranked teams: an network analysis in high-level Volleyball” for consideration of the PLOS ONE. The reviewer 3 requested corrections in the references, as well as the insertion of a figure with the reception zones. We complied with the reviewer's request. We emphasize that the DOI was in blue, as it is an access link. In addition, we entered the DOI of all manuscripts that contained this identification. Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280365.r004
21 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Filipe Manuel Clemente, Editor PONE-D-22-23691R2Inter e intra variability of the best ranked teams: a network analysis in high-level VolleyballPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Costa, 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 consider the latest comments from reviewer 1 Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 04 2023 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, Filipe Manuel Clemente, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: Yes 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: The authors answered the vast majority of the questions raised, however I leave two notes: - There is still spacing in the references after the comma. - With regard to the observational instrument, it is not clear whether or not there was a validation process. It is noticed that the variables were listed according to the literature review, but validation by experts is not evident, or another type of instrument validation was performed. I suggest you see the following bibliographical reference: Pulido, J.J., Sánchez-Oliva, D., Silva, M.N., Palmeira, A.L., & García-Calvo, T. (2019). Development and preliminary validation of the Coach interpersonal Style Observational System. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 14(4), 471-479 Reviewer #3: Dear Authors, Thank you for your effort. All recommendations have been made according the suggestions. In my opinion, the paper could be accepted in this final version. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Fernando Jorge Santos Reviewer #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280365.r005
Revision 3
27 Dec 2022 Author Response Dear Reviewer 1, We have submitted an original research article entitled “Inter e intra variability of the best ranked teams: a network analysis in high-level Volleyball” for consideration of the PLOS ONE. The reviewer 1 requested corrections in the references, as well as more information on the analysis of coaches. The extra spaces in the references section has been removed. In the methods section, we added the following information: The coaches used the Data Volley software to control and analyze the scenes. Each analyzed dimension was discussed by the coaches, ensuring that the categories were exclusive and exhaustive to represent the different game scenarios, as well as that there was a unanimous consensus among all evaluators as suggested by Pulido et al. [47]. We emphasize that we inserted the reference suggested by the reviewer. We complied with the reviewer's request. Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript. Best Regards. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280365.r006
28 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Filipe Manuel Clemente, Editor Inter e intra variability of the best ranked teams: a network analysis in high-level Volleyball PONE-D-22-23691R3 Dear Dr. Costa, 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, Filipe Manuel Clemente, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280365.r007
Formally Accepted
12 Jan 2023 Acceptance Letter - Filipe Manuel Clemente, Editor PONE-D-22-23691R3 Inter e intra-variability of the best ranked teams: a network analysis in male high-level Volleyball. Dear Dr. Costa: 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. Filipe Manuel Clemente Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280365.r008

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 .