Effect of table tennis balls with different materials and structures on the hardness and elasticity

Yunfei Lu; Jie Ren; Jun Wang; Yan Wang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0301560

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 23, 2023
16 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Emiliano Cè, Editor PONE-D-23-38766Effect of table tennis balls with different materials and structures on the hardness and elasticityPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 01 2024 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, Emiliano Cè 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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. Additional Editor Comments: ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR:Dear Authors,your manuscript has been reviewed by an expert in the filed that retrieved some issues you should consider wile revising the work. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The study is very interesting with parameters that provide great information. However, some methodological issues should be added. 1. Keywords. It is suggested that the keywords be different from those in the title. Shorter words should also be included. 2. Introduction. It should be improved by briefly commenting on the implication that the characteristics of some or other balls have on the game of table tennis so that non-experts in this sport know the interest of this research. 3. Material and methods. In the samples include the characteristics of each ball analyzed in terms of mass, weight, rebound height on the table and others of interest to be able to carry out a more exhaustive contrast analysis. 4. Discussion. Delete the dot in front of the last bibliographic reference number 9 of the second paragraph. Where "Therefore, it seems that the return speed of new material balls would be faster than celluloid" is indicated, that statement should be explained with more studies that highlight it since it generates controversy with current table tennis. The phrase "It is difficult to explain this result, but it should be related to diameter size." It should be justified with more studies since there is extensive literature on table tennis where this fact is indicated. What does this type imply differences in the balls on the dynamics of the game, the physical condition and the physiological response? greater or lesser demand? greater or lesser number of hits per play? Perhaps this is one of the strong points that should be highlighted in the study. References. A review of the literature should be done since there are studies outside of Chinese publications where these issues and their effects are addressed, so it is recommended to incorporate new references to improve the introduction, discussion and bibliography, for example https://www .ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5304273/ ****** 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 ******** [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.0301560.r001
Revision 1
27 Feb 2024 Author Response Dear Emiliano Cè, Thank you for your guidance and valuable advice. In response to your requests, we have made the following revisions: 1.We have corrected our manuscript according to the template requirements of PLOS ONE. 2.Following the suggestion from PLOS ONE, we have uploaded the relevant raw data to Zenodo. The DOI for our dataset is 10.5281/zenodo.10718491. We believe that by sharing our dataset openly, we not only increase the transparency of our work but also facilitate further research and collaboration within the academic community. 3.We have uploaded the relevant raw data. We appreciate the opportunity to improve our manuscript and hope that these adjustments meet the journal's requirements. Should you need any further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Yan Wang Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: Reviewer 1： The study is very interesting with parameters that provide great information. However, some methodological issues should be added. 1. Keywords. It is suggested that the keywords be different from those in the title. Shorter words should also be included. Reply: Thanks for your advice. We have changed the Keywords: Table tennis balls; Material; Hardness and Elasticity; Static mechanical characteristics. 2. Introduction. It should be improved by briefly commenting on the implication that the characteristics of some or other balls have on the game of table tennis so that non-experts in this sport know the interest of this research. Reply: Based on your comments, we have made revisions to enhance the clarity of our research. Specifically, we have added the impact of ball speed reduction on the spectator experience of table tennis, particularly in light of the declining media interest in the sport, particularly outside of Asia. We have emphasized the challenges viewers face in tracking the ball due to the fast-paced nature of the game, as noted by Djokić [1]. Furthermore, we have expanded on the transition from the old 38-mm ball to the larger 40-mm ball, highlighting the resultant decrease in velocity and spin, as documented by [2-4]. 3. Material and methods. In the samples include the characteristics of each ball analyzed in terms of mass, weight, rebound height on the table and others of interest to be able to carry out a more exhaustive contrast analysis. Reply: Revised. We added the diameters of each ball in Table 2. 4. Discussion. Delete the dot in front of the last bibliographic reference number 9 of the second paragraph. Reply: We thank the reviewer for careful evaluation and pointing out these errors. We have corrected these as suggested. 5. Where "Therefore, it seems that the return speed of new material balls would be faster than celluloid" is indicated, that statement should be explained with more studies that highlight it since it generates controversy with current table tennis. The phrase "It is difficult to explain this result, but it should be related to diameter size." It should be justified with more studies since there is extensive literature on table tennis where this fact is indicated. Reply: Thank you for your insightful comments regarding our paper. We greatly appreciate your feedback and have carefully considered your suggestions. As you rightly pointed out, the changes observed in the speed of table tennis balls generates controversy with current table tennis. The phenomenon of decreased speed and rotation in table tennis balls can be attributed to the changes in the radius and mass of the ball. The modern 40mm ball, being 2mm larger and 0.2 grams heavier than its predecessor, encounters greater air resistance due to its increased cross-sectional area. This, in turn, affects its speed and rotation. Additionally, the redistribution of mass away from the center of the larger ball results in a larger inertial moment, further diminishing rotation. Furthermore, research by Bai et al. [4], Iimoto et al. [2], and J. Li et al. [3] supports our findings, indicating that the larger 40mm ball leads to a reduction in both speed and rotation by approximately 5% to 10%. Furthermore, we added the impact of ball radius variation on player performance. The increase in ball diameter not only affects the characteristics of the game but also influences players' strategies and techniques. Players need to adapt their playing style to accommodate the changes in ball dynamics, which can significantly impact their performance on the court [5, 6]. 6. What does this type imply differences in the balls on the dynamics of the game, the physical condition and the physiological response? greater or lesser demand? greater or lesser number of hits per play? Perhaps this is one of the strong points that should be highlighted in the study. Reply: We appreciate your feedback and have carefully reviewed your suggestions. Regarding your question about material changes' impact on player performance, we'd like to offer further explanation based on additional literature we've included. As per Li et al. [3], new regulations in 2000 significantly altered table tennis dynamics. Athletes faced more stalemates, while serve and return attack rates remained constant. This highlights the direct influence of ball materials and regulations on player strategies. Additionally, Djokić et al. [6] support our findings, showing that increasing ball diameter reduces speed and spin, affecting ace strokes and overplay situations. Their research emphasizes the importance of player fitness and technique in adapting to these changes. 7. References. A review of the literature should be done since there are studies outside of Chinese publications where these issues and their effects are addressed, so it is recommended to incorporate new references to improve the introduction, discussion and bibliography, for example: https://www .ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5304273/ Reply: We have carefully reviewed the provided link to the study on the effects of the issues discussed in our paper. We also added some references to enrich the discussion. References: 1. Djokić, Z. ITTF scored a goal (changes of rules in table tennis during 2000-2003). in Proceedings book. 10th International Table Tennis Sports Science Congress. 2007. 2. Iimoto, Y., K. Yoshida, and N. Yuza, Rebound characteristics of the new table tennis Ball; Differences between the 40 mm (2.7 g) and 38 mm (2.5 g) balls. Int J Table Tennis Sci, 2002. 5: p. 233-243. 3. Li, J., X. Zhao, and C. Zhang, Changes and development: Influence of new rules on table tennis techniques. Sports Science Research, 2005. 26(3): p. 55. 4. Bai, K., et al. Technical contrastive analysis after ping-pong diameter altering. in Proceedings of the 9th ITTF Sports Science Congress, Shanghai, China. 2005. 5. Pradas, F., et al., Analysis of Specific Physical Fitness in High-Level Table Tennis Players-Sex Differences. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2022. 19(9). 6. Đokić, Z., et al., Effects OF rule changes ON performance efficacy: differences between winners and losers table tennis players. Facta Universitatis, Series: Physical Education and Sport, 2019: p. 149-163. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301560.r002
19 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Emiliano Cè, Editor Effect of table tennis balls with different materials and structures on the hardness and elasticity PONE-D-23-38766R1 Dear Dr. Wang, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Emiliano Cè Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The Authors replied adequately to all the points raised by the reviewer. No further revision is required Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301560.r003
Formally Accepted
24 Mar 2024 Acceptance Letter - Emiliano Cè, Editor PONE-D-23-38766R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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 Prof. Emiliano Cè Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301560.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 .