Dear Dr. Bennett,

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, thank you for sending your manuscript to Plos One for review. After peer review, we ask that you follow the suggestions made by the reviewers. Changes to the text must be identified, and a point-by-point response letter must be sent to each reviewer. I await your submission of the updated manuscript.

Best regards

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 30 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 include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

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.

[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: 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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Dear Editor-in-Chief,

I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to review this manuscript submitted to your journal. After a careful evaluation, I would like to suggest some improvements that could further strengthen the manuscript and enhance its clarity and scientific rigor, particularly in the introduction, methods, and discussion sections.

Introduction:

The introduction is well-directed and successfully presents the research problem, supported by relevant studies. However, to further strengthen this section, I recommend including references that specifically address the terminology "fast ball sports" and the necessity to process and monitor multiple sources of information from opponents, teammates, and the ball. Adding such references would substantiate the use of this nomenclature.

Additionally, in lines 45-47, where it is stated that on-field training for decision making is not simple, not individualized, and often overlooked in favor of technical skills training, it would be beneficial to include references that have discussed or demonstrated a similar focus on technical skills at the expense of decision-making training.

Methods:

In the methods section, particularly in lines 138-139, where it is mentioned that the number of opponents, court size, number of zones, and number of clips per condition are presented in Table 1, I suggest adding a brief explanation of how the court sizes were determined. This would clarify the rationale behind the experimental setup.

Furthermore, in lines 166-167, where it is mentioned that the aim was to ensure high-quality passes that would provide all spiking options, it would be important to briefly define what was considered a "high-quality pass" to enhance the understanding of the experimental conditions.

In lines 211-213, where different topics related to difficulty levels are discussed—such as the position of the block relative to the sidelines and the defenders relative to the block—it would be helpful to specify more clearly what criteria were used to assess these positions and what was considered a "bad pass."

Similarly, in lines 214-216, where the intervention aims to improve decision making in both standard and non-standard situations (e.g., bad pass or incorrectly formed block), a clearer definition of what constitutes a "correctly formed block" would strengthen the methodology description.

Finally, in lines 233-235, where a panel of three expert coaches selected the most optimal zone(s) for decision making, I recommend clarifying the criteria used to determine the "most optimal zone(s)."

Discussion:

Regarding the discussion section, I suggest restructuring it to first state that this was a pilot study, helping readers to appropriately contextualize the findings. Furthermore, I recommend organizing the discussion based on the hypotheses presented at the end of the introduction, using them as a framework to guide the interpretation of results.

Additionally, it would be beneficial to clearly separate the suggestions for future research and the limitations of the current study into distinct final sections, concluding with a concise summary of the key findings and contributions.

I believe these recommendations will significantly enhance the manuscript’s clarity, coherence, and scientific contribution. I appreciate your attention to these suggestions and remain at your disposal for any further clarifications.

Sincerely,

Reviewer #2: Review Comments

This study explored the impact of video training on the on-field decision-making ability of adolescent volleyball players, filling the gap in existing literature regarding the adolescent population and the effect of training transfer. The research design was reasonable, the hypotheses were clear, and the conclusion provided preliminary evidence for the application of video training in the improvement of adolescent sports skills, with practical value.

Problems and Suggestions

The initial sample size was small (N=20), and only 16 people completed the study in the end. This may affect the generalizability of the results.

The article mentions that the original plan was to have N=50, but due to difficulties in actual recruitment, only N=20 was achieved. It is necessary to explain whether a post hoc power analysis was conducted to assess whether the current sample size is sufficient to support the conclusion.

Was the training content of the control group completely unrelated to decision-making ability? It is necessary to provide additional explanations regarding the design logic of the tasks in the control group to avoid potential confounding factors that may indirectly affect decision-making ability.

The article mentions "random grouping by teams", but does not specify whether there are any baseline differences among the teams.

Although the on-site tests simulate the competition scenarios, they rely on a fixed defensive mode, which may differ from the dynamic complexity of real competitions.

Only the retention effect after 4 weeks was evaluated, and there was a lack of long-term follow-up.

The condition checks for the prerequisite of variance analysis were not mentioned.

Should multiple comparisons be corrected? The article mentioned using Bonferroni correction, but it is necessary to clarify which analyses it is specifically applied to.

**********

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.

Dear Dr. Bennett,

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 author, I hope this email finds you well. Please proceed with the changes suggested by the reviewers. I await your receipt of the revised version.

Best regards

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 18 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:

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

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: 1. The planned N=50 (L94-96), but only N=16 (8 people per group) was actually completed. Although a post hoc sensitivity analysis was mentioned, the risk of insufficient power or effect size was not reported in the main text.

2. The review response stated that an error in the SPSS correction was found, which changed the p-value for verbal decision-making from 0.009 to 0.085, but the main text was not updated.

3. "On-field" should be consistent throughout the text (used as "on-field" in the abstract and L27, but as "field test" in L166).

Reviewer #3: 1. The keyword section should not repeat words used in the manuscript title.

2. Since the authors describe this study as a pilot study, it would be appropriate to reflect this in the title. Using a phrase such as "Pilot Study" would clarify the preliminary nature of the findings and properly define expectations regarding scope, sample size, and generalizability of the results.

3. The sample size (n = 20, of which only 16 completed the study) appears rather limited. Given the goal of assessing the effectiveness of video training on decision-making in young volleyball players, a larger sample size would strengthen both the validity and generalizability of the results.

4. The introduction lacks a justification for why decision-making is particularly important in volleyball, especially for female players, given the sample studied. Furthermore, the literature review lacks sufficient references to previous research on decision-making in volleyball.

5. The "Participants" section lacks detailed information about the participants, such as their age, gender, and training experience.

6. The manuscript does not provide information about the participants' stage of annual training cycle. This is particularly important for individuals recruited from different sports clubs, as changes in training load or competition phase could have influenced both cognitive and physical performance.

7. Conducting the home video test without researcher supervision may have introduced uncontrolled variables. A brief discussion of how this could have affected the reliability of the data would increase the study’s transparency. To what extent can the authors be certain that the test was performed by the intended participants rather than by an individual not involved in the study?

8. The manuscript does not specify whether a warm-up was conducted before the on-field assessment. If a warm-up was included, please provide detailed information regarding its structure and duration.

9. Regarding lines 136–140: It would be helpful to indicate whether the difficulty levels of the tasks were previously verified to ensure their appropriateness for the target age group.

10. Additional information regarding the environment in which the video-based decision-making task was conducted would be helpful. Was it conducted individually? In a quiet environment? Were any steps taken to limit distractions or prevent interactions between participants during the test? Clarifying these aspects would help assess the internal validity of the results. If the test was conducted in sessions, it would also be helpful to describe how other participants were treated during the individual assessments.

11. The manuscript suggests that the scenarios used in the on-court decision-making assessment mirrored those used in the video-based task. If so, there is a risk that the improvement may be due in part to memory or familiarity rather than to actual skill transfer. Although using adapted scenarios increases consistency, participants may have simply recalled the correct answers, especially if the post-test was conducted soon after the intervention.

12. The on-court test included a total of 40 attack trials from both the left and right sides of the net. The manuscript does not indicate whether rest periods were provided between trials. Clarifying this is important because a lack of rest periods can lead to fatigue, potentially impacting decision-making ability.

13. Although the manuscript states that cameras were positioned at various angles, the specific angles are not specified. Including this information would improve the clarity and repeatability of the on-field data collection procedure. Furthermore, there is no information about the frequency with which the cameras were recorded or the equipment used for this purpose.

14. The manuscript does not specify the height of the net used during the on-field assessment or the type of ball used. Providing this information is important for understanding whether the test conditions were appropriate for the participants' age group and level of competition.

15. The manuscript does not clearly indicate when the retention test was conducted in relation to the end of the 4-week training intervention. It would be helpful to specify whether it took place immediately after the last session or after a longer period. Clarifying the exact time (e.g., hours or days after the intervention) would improve the interpretation of retention effects.

16. It is unclear whether participants who were not actively performing the on-field task had the opportunity to observe others during the assessment. If so, this may have influenced their performance through observational learning or additional pressure. Clarifying whether the tests were administered individually or in isolation will help assess the consistency and reliability of the results.

**********

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 #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.

Improving on-field decision making using video-based training – a pilot study with young volleyball players

PONE-D-25-11115R2

Dear Dr. Bennett,

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, thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. Congratulations on its acceptance, and I hope your manuscript will be cited by the international scientific community.

Sincerely,

Gustavo De Conti

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: 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??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: This revised paper meets the requirements for publication. The author has supplemented the data and provided a more in-depth analysis of the results. The added content is in line with the modifications made to the proposed questions. Therefore, this paper can be published.

Reviewer #3: I particularly appreciate that the authors clearly identified the work as a pilot study in the title and throughout the text. This reflects the limited sample size, exploratory nature of the analyses, and limited generalizability of the results. In this format, the manuscript presents a coherent and transparent description of preliminary research.

The results should be interpreted with due caution and primarily as a basis for future studies on a larger scale.

The additional methodological clarifications (e.g., testing procedures, training period, ball and net specifications, warm-up, timing of the retention test) and the expanded discussion of limitations and future directions make the study suitably robust and informative for a pilot design.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********