Changes in countermovement jump force-time characteristic in elite male basketball players: A season-long analyses

Nicolas M. Philipp; Dimitrije Cabarkapa; Ramsey M. Nijem; Andrew C. Fry

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286581

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 26, 2022
27 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Danica Janicijevic, Editor PONE-D-22-31306Changes in Countermovement Jump Force-Time Characteristic in Elite Male Basketball Players: A Season-Long AnalysesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nicolas M Phillipp, 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. ACADEMIC EDITOR: Dear authors, please find attached the comments of the two reviewers who recommended minor revisions. Specifically, pay attention to the comments regarding reorganization of the information within the manuscript for increasing readability (proposed by the second reviewer). Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 10 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, Danica Janicijevic, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "NO" At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: "NO" 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. 4. 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. 5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: line 46 -47 need a reference line 71 - 73 I suggest updating the definition. (10.1519/SSC.0b013e3181e928f9, 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2020.110136) table 1: the table is not clear, the 57 evaluations correspond to the evaluations of the 12 athletes participating in the study during 7 days of testing? if so, shouldn't it be 84? and likewise for the other periods. I suggest an explanatory or explanatory note at the bottom of the table. line 122: mention the code line 142: this is repeating what is already in table 1 line 156: I suggest a quote that supports this decision check this if it works for you 10.21500/20112084.844 the quality of the images is not the best, try to improve the resolution Reviewer #2: General comment: The background of the authors as applied researchers are noticeable in their current work. Some revisions are needed to make it more scientific. In addition, there is lacking information in regard to phase periodization models (tactical periodization during in-season vs. traditional) and training parameters (duration; frequency; mode) which may help justify the findings of the study. Specific comments: -avoid using athlete's and similar wordings (CMJ's, team's, etc...) in the manuscript -make statements more simple LN 54-66: Re-organize in a way that it highlights the changes in jump mechanics across training phases. Use the lack of studies in real-world settings in the last part to justify the need for this kind of study. LN 67-69: Paraphrase into more scientific stream. LN 70: change hopping to jumping. LN 78-80: just use force platform from this point onwards. Integrate LN 80-81. LN 125: is the dynamic warm-up consistent across training phases? Expound. LN 208-260: Too much information presented here. Breakdown into two paragraphs (1: key findings; 2: rationale for results). REFERENCE: double check and update for adherence with the journal standard. For example: LN: 367-370: abstract? LN 372-374: Should be 2022 LN 379: Should be Journal of Exercise in Sports and Medicine LN 381: Should be Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research ****** 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: Brayan Patiño-Palma Reviewer #2: Yes: Jeffrey Cayaban Pagaduan ******** [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.0286581.r001
Revision 1
9 Jan 2023 Author Response Specific Comments and Author Response for Reviewer #1: Line 46-47 “Need a reference”. Authors have added a reference to the respective location. Thank you for your constructive feedback. Line 71-73 “I suggest updating the definition.” Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment. We have eliminated our definition and have cited a definition from the article proposed by yourself. Table 1 “The table is not clear, the 57 evaluations correspond to the evaluations of the 12 athletes participating in the study during 7 days of testing? if so, shouldn't it be 84? and likewise for the other periods. I suggest an explanatory or explanatory note at the bottom of the table” We have added a sentence in the paragraph above to clarify what is meant by test days and athlete screenings to avoid any potential confusion. We hope this clarifies things. Given the real-world nature of our data, not all 12 athletes performed the jumps on every single test day due to various reasons (e.g., sickness, class conflicts etc.). We account for these “holes” in the data by using linear mixed effect models as our statistical approach. Line 122 “Mention the code.” Thank you, we have added the respective IRB approval number. Line 142 “This is repeating what is already in table 1”. Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive feedback. We have eliminated the respective sentence since the information is already provided in table 1. Line 156 “I suggest a quote that supports this decision”. Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment, we have added an addition to the sentence, as well as the citation. Figures the quality of the images is not the best, try to improve the resolution Dear reviewer, we believe the quality of the images (JPEG) that were initially submitted are of good quality, however the quality might have been influence in the conversion to a PDF. In this case we would like to refer to the editor for a final decision. If indeed the quality of our images needs improvement, we’d be happy to look into this and make respective changes. Thank you, Reviewer #1, for your comments and suggestions. By addressing your prompts, the manuscript should better appeal to readership. Specific Comments and Author Response for Reviewer #2: LN 54-66 “Re-organize in a way that it highlights the changes in jump mechanics across training phases. Use the lack of studies in real-world settings in the last part to justify the need for this kind of study” Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive feedback. We have reordered the paragraph in a way where now, the respective studies are mentioned in the beginning of the paragraph, and the rationale behind why studies in real-world settings are needed, towards the end of the paragraph. We hope this paragraph now reads clearer. LN 67-69 “Paraphrase into more scientific stream”. Highlighted in blue, we have made respective changes to the proposed location. LN 70 “Change hopping to jumping” Thank you, we have made the proposed change. LN 78-80 “Just use force platform from this point onwards. Integrate LN 80-81.” Dear reviewer, thank you for this comment, we have made the proposed change in our manuscript. LN 125 “Is the dynamic warm-up consistent across training phases? Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive feedback. We have added a note clarifying that the warmup procedures stayed consistent over the duration of the study. LN 208-260 “Too much information presented here. Breakdown into two paragraphs (1: Key findings; 2: Rationale for results).” Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment. We have reduced our discussion, to make it more concise. However, in line with PlosOne’s guidelines, especially in regard to interpreting the results, and how they relate to the hypothesis, and previously conducted research, we fear that by eliminating further sections from the discussion, our manuscript loses strength. If in its current standing, the discussion section still does not fulfill what is expected for publication, we kindly ask you, as well as the editorial team to make suggestions slightly more detailed, in order for us authors to edit specific parts of the discussion. We'd be happy to incorporate further changes if suggested. We greatly appreciate your feedback and believe our manuscript will be improved based on your comments. REFERENCES Thank you, we have made suggested changes to our references, and highlighted these in blue. Thank you, Reviewer #2, for your comments and suggestions. By addressing your prompts, the manuscript should better appeal to readership. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PlosOne Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286581.r002
19 May 2023 Decision Letter - Goran Kuvačić, Editor Changes in Countermovement Jump Force-Time Characteristic in Elite Male Basketball Players: A Season-Long Analyses PONE-D-22-31306R1 Dear Dr. Philipp, 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, Goran Kuvačić, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: <quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal> https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286581.r003
Formally Accepted
24 May 2023 Acceptance Letter - Goran Kuvačić, Editor PONE-D-22-31306R1 Changes in Countermovement Jump Force-Time Characteristic in Elite Male Basketball Players: A Season-Long Analyses Dear Dr. Philipp: 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. Goran Kuvačić Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286581.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .