-->PONE-D-25-64451-->-->Multidimensional Performance Characteristics of Youth Academy and Club Soccer Players-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Norill Kvalvaag,

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 13 2026 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 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,

Julio Alejandro Henriques Castro da Costa

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. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found.

3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more 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. 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.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

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?

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 purpose of this study was to determine multidimensional performance characteristics among U14 players by comparing match-selected academy players (n=20), non-match selected academy players (n=14), and club players (n=22). In total 56 players performed 40 m sprint test, Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1, and completed validated self-reported mental skills and motivation questionnaires. Executive functions were measured via tests from Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) and biological age was calculated using bone age assessed from left hand X-ray images.

The results indicated that match-selected academy players were significantly taller, had higher weight and bone age compared to both club players and non-match-selected academy players. In addition, match-selected academy players had significantly better physical performance and reported stronger mental skills, compared to club players. Moreover, club players reported higher levels of a motivation and external-regulation compared to both match-selected- and non-match-selected academy players, reflecting a less-self determinate motivational profile. In conclusion, match-selected academy players demonstrated better decision-making, characterized by a significantly lower tendency to take risks to avoid delay and a greater ability to rationally adjust risk compared to club players. Finally, no further group differences were found for the executive function tests between groups

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting and timely manuscript. The topic is appropriate and important, as talent identification/selection in soccer remains a current priority in both research and practice, while also being debated in the literature. Overall, the manuscript has a strong introduction and a clearly stated problem; however, several areas require improvement before the study can be strengthened and its contribution made clearer.

Major points for revision

1. Hypotheses (clarity and presentation)

o The hypotheses should be stated more explicitly. Please present the study hypotheses in a clear, direct format (ideally numbered or listed) so the reader can easily understand what was tested and how the analyses relate to the research aims.

2. Reliability and validity reporting

o While the selected tests and measurements appear appropriate, the manuscript needs clearer reporting of reliability and validity for all instruments and assessments used.

o Please add a concise section (or table) summarizing reliability/validity evidence for each test/measurement (e.g., test–retest reliability, inter-rater reliability if applicable, internal consistency when relevant, and validity evidence). If reliability was assessed in the current sample, those results should be reported; if not, provide strong supporting citations and justify why those measures are appropriate for the population and context.

3. Literature review (update and scope)

o The discussion and conclusion would benefit from incorporating more recent literature (2023 and above) to reflect current debates and developments in soccer talent identification.

o In addition, I recommend strengthening the literature review by including a focused section on key problems/challenges in talent identification in football, such as (as relevant to the manuscript): relative age effects, maturation status and growth-related bias, contextual and environmental influences, position-specific demands, selection biases, and the limitations of predicting long-term performance from early testing.

4. Discussion and conclusion (strength, practical applications, future directions)

o The conclusion section should be strengthened to provide clearer practical applications for coaches, academies, and practitioners, aligned with the study findings.

o Please also expand the future research directions, including what additional variables, methods, samples, or longitudinal approaches might address limitations in the current study and improve talent identification models.

I look forward to reviewing a revised version of this interesting and timely manuscript. Thank you.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

I appreciate the opportunity to review the study titled “Multidimensional Performance Characteristics of Youth Academy and Club Soccer Players.” Congratulations on your efforts to present this important comparison of soccer players across different competitive levels. To enhance the content of the paper, please consider my following suggestions, comments, and questions:

[1] P3 L36-38: The idea presented contradicts the initial assertion. You state, “First, to ensure that the most promising talent reaches their full potential, clubs and national federations allocate substantial resources to identifying and nurturing players as early as possible.” If the dynamics of sports change in adulthood, why is there an emphasis on early identification?

[2] P3 L38: Please clarify the term "early talent detection." What does it specifically entail?

[3] P3 L42: While the authors address maturation and the relative age effect, it is important to recognize that other factors influence coach selection. Speculation should be balanced with these additional considerations.

[4] P3 L33-P42: Recent references relevant to youth soccer players could enhance the introduction section. Consider including the following:

Martinho, D. V., Gonzalo-Skok, O., Chamari, K., Field, A., Clemente, F. M., & Rebelo, A. et al. (2026). Nutrition as a missing piece in the development of youth male soccer players: a scoping review and future directions. Biology of Sport, 43(1), 291-317.

Martinho, D. V., Coelho-E-Silva, M. J., Gonçalves Santos, J., Oliveira, T. G., Minderico, C. S., Seabra, A., Valente-Dos-Santos, J., Sherar, L. B., & Malina, R. M. (2023). Body Size, Fatness and Skeletal Age in Female Youth Soccer Players. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 44(10), 711–719. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1686-4563

[5] P3 L49: It may be more accurate to refer to "skeletal age" rather than "bone age."

[6] P3 L50: The term "physiological development" is incorrect; please revise accordingly.

[7] P4 L55-58: Ensure consistent terminology throughout the text. "Identification," "selection," and "development" represent different concepts. Refer to the following sources for clarity:

Till, K., & Baker, J. (2020). Challenges and [Possible] Solutions to Optimizing Talent Identification and Development in Sport. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 664. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00664

Mendes, D., Martinho, D. V., Travassos, B., Gouveia, É. R., Saavedra, N. O., & Sarmento, H. (2025). Talent Selection in Portuguese National Futsal Teams. Journal of Human Kinetics, 99, 253–261. https://doi.org/10.5114/jhk/199379

[8] Introduction Length: The introduction is overly lengthy. Consider abbreviating the last two paragraphs leading up to the study's aim.

[9] P7 L142: How do you categorize players by maturational status? The authors represent skeletal age as a continuous variable, rather than categorical.

[10] Please discuss the data quality related to skeletal age assessment, including citations from other studies to support your findings.

[11] P8 L149-150: The reduction of variability in the Greulich-Pyle method has been noted in female soccer, as documented in the following study:

Martinho, D. V., Coelho-E-Silva, M. J., Valente-Dos-Santos, J., Minderico, C., Oliveira, T. G., Rodrigues, I., Conde, J., Sherar, L. B., & Malina, R. M. (2022). Assessment of skeletal age in youth female soccer players: Agreement between Greulich-Pyle and Fels protocols. American Journal of Human Biology, 34(1), e23591. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23591

[12] Tables should not use labels A, B, and C. Please replace these with "academy players," "non-match academy players," and "club players."

[13] Consider adding some tables as supplementary material and designing figures for the main results to present more objective findings.

**********

-->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: Ferman Konukman

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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Multidimensional Performance Characteristics of Youth Academy and Club Soccer Players

PONE-D-25-64451R1

Dear Dr. Norill Kvalvaag,

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,

Julio Alejandro Henriques Castro da Costa

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

-->4. 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

**********

-->5. 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

**********

-->6. 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: I believe that the current edited version of this manuscript is acceptable. All my questions were answered in detail. Thank you.

**********

-->7. 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: Ferman Konukman

**********