Determining relative population-specific acceleration intensity thresholds in soccer using game locomotion data: Validation of a new method using data from male youth elite players

Pascal Andrey; Karin Fischer-Sonderegger; Wolfgang Taube; Markus Tschopp

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0321275

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 23, 2024
23 Dec 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321275.r001
30 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Stefano Amatori, Editor PONE-D-24-58536Determining relative population-specific acceleration intensity thresholds in soccer using game locomotion data: Validation of a new methodPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Andrey, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. We have received the comments from the two Reviewers, and after careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Given their suggestions, the paper's quality is overall good, but it requires some minor adjustments. 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 16 2025 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, Stefano Amatori, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 3. 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 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: 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 article aimed to present and validate a new method for determining population-specific acceleration intensity thresholds in soccer, using game locomotion data. The paper’s quality is overall good: the abstract is clear enough, the design has been well explained and the results are presented in a good form. I have detailed below some additional comments that could help to further strengthen the manuscript quality. Title: The investigated population is composed by male youth elite soccer players. This should be indicated in title. Introduction: The introduction presents some sentences that are too short, fragmenting linearity of text. In addition, many phrases has no references, that should be added. In particular the following points require attention: Line 42: Reference required Lines 43 – 63: Sentences too short fragmenting linearity of text and too many phrases with no reference Lines 67 – 70: Sentences too short fragmenting linearity of text and too many phrases with no reference Line 97: Reference required Lines 102 – 107: References required Materials and methods: Participants: A table including descriptive statistics of anthropometric measures could be helpful to improve section clarity. Measurements: It should be clarified if warm up protocols before tests have been standardized. Data analysis: Event selection and model fitting: A more comprehensive explanation of model is required, it is clearer in figure 1 description Lines 171 – 189: A more comprehensive explanation of model is required, it is clearer in figure 1 description than in the text Statistical analysis: The decision about role division should have to be justified. Are there any previous studies which found role differences in evaluated parameters? If yes, please add a relevant reference here. Discussion: The discussion present some sentences that are too short, fragmenting linearity of text, and making it harder to read. Conclusion: Clear but it could be explained that more studies about different age and levels are required Figures: Figure 1: Chart legend on the figure is needed to explain symbols. I hope these comment will help to improve the overall quality of the manuscript, and I look forward to receive the revised version. Reviewer #2: The study is rigorous and innovative, with solid data and robust methods. However, I suggest including more practical applications to demonstrate the real-world impact and usability of the proposed approach. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321275.r002
Revision 1
28 Feb 2025 Author Response Response to comments of Reviewer #1 Title: The investigated population is composed by male youth elite soccer players. This should be indicated in title. Agreed. We have changed the title accordingly. Introduction: The introduction presents some sentences that are too short, fragmenting linearity of text. In addition, many phrases has no references, that should be added. In particular the following points require attention: Agreed. We have revised the entire introduction to improve the flow of the text and have added additional references in several places. Line 42: Reference required. Agreed. Relevant references have been inserted. Lines 43–63: Sentences too short fragmenting linearity of text and too many phrases with no reference. Agreed. We have revised the text to improve the flow of reading. We have also added one or more references in four places. Lines 67–70: Sentences too short fragmenting linearity of text and too many phrases with no reference. Agreed. We have revised the text to improve the flow of reading. We have also added one reference. Line 97: Reference required. This sentence is a hypothesis. Consequently, there is no reference to this. We have changed the wording of the sentence to clarify that this is a hypothesis. In addition, we have inserted two additional sentences with references before the commented sentence. These two sentences are intended to substantiate our hypothesis and should make it easier to understand how we arrive at it. Lines 102–107: References required. This sentence is again a hypothesis. We have changed the wording of the sentence to clarify this. In addition, we have again inserted two additional sentences with references before the commented sentence to substantiate our hypothesis and to make it easier to understand how we arrive at it. Participants: A table including descriptive statistics of anthropometric measures could be helpful to improve section clarity. Agreed. We have included information on the weight and height of the participants in the text. Measurements: It should be clarified if warm up protocols before tests have been standardized. Agreed. The warm-up was standardized. We have added this to the text. Event selection and model fitting: A more comprehensive explanation of model is required, it is clearer in figure 1 description. Lines 171–189: A more comprehensive explanation of model is required; it is clearer in figure 1 description than in the text. Agreed. We have revised this part of the article with the aim of making our methodical approach clearer and easier to understand. Statistical analysis: The decision about role division should have to be justified. Are there any previous studies which found role differences in evaluated parameters? If yes, please add a relevant reference here. It was not entirely clear to us what this comment meant. Our study is the first to determine the mean difference between a game-based and a test-based amax-vinit regression line. Consequently, no previous studies have reported non-uniform effects (i.e., different mean differences) for groups of players of different playing positions. Since our data showed such non-uniform effects, we decided to include playing position in the statistical model. In the text, we have included the statistical rationale for this, along with the references. In addition, we have added a possible explanation for the observed non-uniform effects. For this, we have also provided references. We hope that this sufficiently justifies the approach we have taken. Discussion: The discussion present some sentences that are too short, fragmenting linearity of text, and making it harder to read. Agreed. We have revised the discussion to improve the flow of the reading. Conclusion: Clear but it could be explained that more studies about different age and levels are required. Agreed. We have expanded the conclusion accordingly. Figures: Figure 1: Chart legend on the figure is needed to explain symbols. Agreed. We have added a chart legend. Response to comments of Reviewer #2 The study is rigorous and innovative, with solid data and robust methods. However, I suggest including more practical applications to demonstrate the real-world impact and usability of the proposed approach. Agreed. We have expanded the practical application section accordingly. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321275.r003
4 Mar 2025 Decision Letter - Stefano Amatori, Editor Determining relative population-specific acceleration intensity thresholds in soccer using game locomotion data: Validation of a new method using data from male youth elite players PONE-D-24-58536R1 Dear Dr. Andrey, 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 Editorial Manager® 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, Stefano Amatori, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321275.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Stefano Amatori, Editor PONE-D-24-58536R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Andrey, 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. Stefano Amatori Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321275.r005

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 .