Dear Dr. Nicklin,

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:

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 20 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.

• 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,

Gustavo De Conti Teixeira Costa, 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. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

4. Please include a copy of Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, which you refer to in your text on page 17.

5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Reviewer Comments for Manuscript PONED2548435

Title: Assessing the Inter & IntraReliability of a Customised Volleyball Performance Analysis System to Analyse Complexes and the Efficacy of the Associated Skills

General Assessment:

This study presents a thorough investigation into the inter and intrareliability of a bespoke volleyball notational analysis system that incorporates complexes, player position, skill type, and skill efficacy. The research addresses a significant gap in the performance analysis literature b not only assessing reliability for a complex set of variables but also by explicitly monitoring for observer drift over an extended period (nine months). The methodological approach is robust, with a detailed description of the coder training process, appropriate statistical analyses (Cohen's Kappa, Weighted Kappa, ICC), and a substantial dataset. The findings are valuable for researchers and practitioners in volleyball performance analysis, demonstrating that detailed, multifaceted coding systems can achieve high reliability. The manuscript is wellstructured and clearly written. I recommend Minor Revisions prior to publication.

1. Data Availability Statement:

The current statement indicates that data cannot be shared due to an agreement with a professional volleyball organization. While this is understandable, it would be beneficial to clarify if there are any conditions under which the data could be made available (e.g., upon reasonable request to the corresponding author and with permission from the organization) or if a deidentified/minimal dataset could be provided. As per PLOS ONE policy, simply stating data is available on request is insufficient, but a more detailed justification for restricted access is needed.

2. Discussion of Variable Reliability:

The results show considerable variability in Kappa values for certain variables, most notably "Type of Serve" in the intrareliability analysis (κ = 0.48 – 0.96 in Table 4a). While the overall values are acceptable, the discussion would be strengthened by briefly hypothesizing reasons for this high variability in specific matches or blocks. Was it due to a particular match context, a temporary lapse in applying the operational definition, or inherent subjectivity in classifying certain serve types?

3. Limitation of a Single Secondary Coder:

The use of one secondary coder for establishing interreliability is a methodological limitation, albeit a common and often practical one. While the authors justify this within their context, the limitation section should more explicitly acknowledge how this choice might affect the generalizability of the interreliability findings compared to studies using multiple coders.

4. Enhancing Reproducibility:

The operational definitions provided in Tables 1 and 2 are excellent. To further enhance the reproducibility and practical application of this work, the authors could consider including the complete coding template or a screenshot of the Nacsport window as Supporting Information (S1 File).

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

I have carefully reviewed your work and appreciate your efforts to contribute to this field of research. While your research topic is of interest and has potential, I regret to inform you that I’m unable to propose acceptance of your manuscript in its current form. As the efficacy scale of volleyball skills was a basic instrument for the research, several methodological shortcomings and limitations were identified that require substantial revisions to ensure the paper's scientific validity.I believe that with careful attention to these areas, your manuscript has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field. I would like to encourage you to revise your work and resubmit it for consideration.

**********

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review.pdf

Assessing the Inter- & Intra-Reliability of a Customised Volleyball Performance Analysis System to Analyse Complexes and the Efficacy of the Associated Skills

PONE-D-25-48435R1

Dear Dr. Nicklin,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Gustavo De Conti Teixeira Costa, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear authors, after peer review, I believe the manuscript is of sufficient quality for acceptance into the journal. I congratulate you on your manuscript and encourage you to submit further manuscripts to this journal. Sincerely,

Gustavo De Conti

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The author has made revisions. The revisions are in line with the suggestions we put forward and respond to them appropriately, meeting the requirements for publication.

Reviewer #2: I've read the authors' updated manuscript and their thorough "Response to Reviewers."

The authors have addressed the issues that have been raised in my initial review in a comprehensive and acceptable manner. They appropriately explained that the goal of this study was not to create and validate a new system, but rather to evaluate the intra- and inter-reliability of their current custom system. Additionally, they pointed out that their scales are based on previously used structures in volleyball literature, which offers crucial background information. By elucidating that "position" refers to "player position," that "efficacy" is an observed 5-point ordinal scale, and by offering the operational definitions for "skill types" as an additional file, they have allayed my worries regarding missing definitions. They also claim to have made a few small clarifications to Table 2's Block definitions.

The authors have taken into account the criticism of the scales' construct validity (such as splitting serve receive levels) by including remarks in the discussion and conclusion that recognize these shortcomings and suggest them as particular directions for further study. Additionally, the authors' own data demonstrated that the variables with the lowest inter-rater reliability scores were, in fact, the ones that I found to be the most subjective (such as "Type of Set" and "Type of Spike"). The authors have improved their paper by addressing this in their discussion.

My concerns have been satisfactorily addressed by the authors. In this version the manuscript is much clearer, its contribution to the field is clearly defined, and its limitations are appropriately contextualized. I recommend acceptance.

**********

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: Yes:  SOTIRIOS DRIKOS

**********