Tooth for a tooth: Does fighting serve as a deterrent to greater violence in the modern NHL

Michael R. Betz

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0269889

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 7, 2022
18 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Hans-Peter Simmen, Editor PONE-D-22-06821Tooth for a Tooth: Does Fighting Serve as a Deterrent to Greater Violence in the Modern NHLPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Betz, 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. It is an interesting and well done study. Reviewers proposed some improvements: There are several mentions of (potential) medical consequences, yet medical data are completely absent from this paper. Coould yyou please give some comments on this porposal ? If a reduction in accidents and accident consequences could also be shown with the reduction in penalties, the arguments would be even more convincing. The applied calculation models to the data collections should be explained already in the method, so the result presentation to the different relationship models can be shown more clearly. Currently the result presentation is a bit confusing, where different explanations and interpretations about this belong either in the introduction/method or discussion (especially e.g. individuals). Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 02 2022 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, Hans-Peter Simmen, M.D., Professor of Surgery 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 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. 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: This study is very important and must be published. Even if ice hockey is known to be an emotional sport with physical contact, fights and unsporting behavior must be punished accordingly (see also IIHF rules and European ice hockey leagues) and are a bad example for the younger generation. However, the main argument in favor of fighting (deterrent effect of other violent behavior) can thus be refuted very well and objectively. I have the following comments for the present study: The data are based only on the penalty practices of the referees, who in turn have some leeway. Although the procedures are widely standardized, this provides some bias and may offer further potential for violence, especially in the case of incorrect decisions. The distinction made between tactical and violent penalties is often fuzzy in reality, but pragmatic for the study. There are several mentions of (potential) medical consequences, yet medical data are completely absent from this paper. If a reduction in accidents and accident consequences could also be shown with the reduction in penalties, the arguments would be even more convincing. The applied calculation models to the data collections should be explained already in the method, so the result presentation to the different relationship models can be shown more clearly. Currently the result presentation is a bit confusing, where different explanations and interpretations about this belong either in the introduction/method or discussion (especially e.g. individuals). Otherwise, compliments and many thanks! Reviewer #2: This paper is well done. You are analyzing a very important issue in the prevention of traumatic brain injuries, which are still too many. Compliment! We have introduced in the past new rules in different ice hockey organization worldwide, like the IIHF, CAHA, etc. in order to reduce the number and severity of ice hockey related injuries, like the “checking from behind Rules” (CAHA in 1985, IIHF in 1994), the “head checking Rues” (IIHF in 2002), etc. However, the number of traumatic brain injuries are still too many and the referees are still not punishing head injuries sufficiently. We have still too many players, which are Fighting may not only cause fractures of the hands and face, lacerations and eye injuries, but may also cause very traumatic brain injuries, which may have long bad sequela to the players. Therefore, fighting should be completely abolished from the ice hockey arena and it should be punished more stronger not only in Europe, like we are doing now, but also in the NHL. NHL is the major goal and dream of every ice hockey players worldwide, therefore the NHL has to be an example for everybody. It is also important that fighting should also be punished very strongly in the minor hockey leagues as well. Therefore, you have done a great job for the prevention of further ice hockey related traumatic brain injuries providing that fighting does not serve as deterrent against more violent behaviors. Compliment. This paper should encourage every ice hockey community and first of all the NHL, to punish fighting more strongly in order to protect the safety of the players and to eliminate every not-necessary contact to the head from the ice arena. Principally head contact is not part of an ice hockey game, therefore every effort to eliminate head contact has only the potential to ameliorate the safety of our players!! ****** 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: Walter Kistler Reviewer #2: Yes:** Dr. med. Nicola Biasca Facharzt FMH für Orthopädische Chirurgie und Traumatologie des Bewegungsapparates Facharzt FMH für Chirurgie, Schwerpunkt Allg. Chirurgie und Unfallchirurgie Fähigkeitsausweis für Sportmedizin SGSM Past IIHF Medical Consultant Staff Medical Team HCAP [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.0269889.r001
Revision 1
26 May 2022 Author Response Reviewer #1 Thank you for reviewing my study and your helpful comments. I’ve addressed your two main comments below. Reviewer #1 Comment #1 The data are based only on the penalty practices of the referees, who in turn have some leeway. Although the procedures are widely standardized, this provides some bias and may offer further potential for violence, especially in the case of incorrect decisions. The distinction made between tactical and violent penalties is often fuzzy in reality, but pragmatic for the study. There are several mentions of (potential) medical consequences, yet medical data are completely absent from this paper. If a reduction in accidents and accident consequences could also be shown with the reduction in penalties, the arguments would be even more convincing. This is a good observation and I agree that ultimately the best measure of player safety is frequency and degree of injuries. However, this is particularly problematic in a study of the NHL because of the league’s restrictive injury disclosure policy. Unlike other major North American professional sports leagues (e.g. the National Football League and National Basketball Association) currently and during the period of study, the NHL’s injury disclosure policy allows teams to describe injuries simply as “lower body injury” or “upper body injury”. This means both a concussion and broken finger are listed as “upper body injuries”. Player medical records are closely guarded by the league and its member teams—and as you can imagine, this is particularly true for head injuries—thus, it’s doubtful the NHL or member teams would release such data for academic research. In absence of player medical records, I’ve endeavored to create a plausible proxy for violent game actions. My understanding of your main concern is that poor (or more lenient) officials may result in both fewer violent penalties being called and more fights, as players take matters into their own hands. This would lead to a downward bias in our estimates (e.g. the actual parameters are more positive than my estimates). I will point out several facts in response to this concern. First, while there is discretion among referees, the level of standardization—as you note—is high. NHL officials are full-time employees of the league and are subjected to rigorous training and performance review. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the design of the team level regressions (now Equation 1) aggregate penalties over the entire season. Throughout the course of an 82-game NHL season, the league uses an assignment mechanism that contains a random element to appoint two of the 44 full-time officials to each game. This randomness ensures teams are not disproportionately and systematically subjected to a particular referee throughout the course of a season, further reducing the likelihood of aggregate referee bias in our results. Finally, if referee-related bias is actually operative it would only strengthen the conclusions from our results. Each of the three coefficient estimates in Table 1 are positive and if the proposed bias is indeed operative and unaccounted for, then our results are actually an underestimate of the positive relationship between fights and violent penalties. Reviewer #1 Comment #2 The applied calculation models to the data collections should be explained already in the method, so the result presentation to the different relationship models can be shown more clearly. Currently the result presentation is a bit confusing, where different explanations and interpretations about this belong either in the introduction/method or discussion (especially e.g. individuals). Thank you for the comment. I’ve included a Methods subsection spanning pages 8-9 in the revised text that details the estimation approach. Hopefully this will better prepare readers for the analysis and results. Reviewer #2 Thank you for reviewing my study and your encouraging comments. I hope that these empirical results will inform the debate over fighting’s role in the NHL. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269889.r002
30 May 2022 Decision Letter - Hans-Peter Simmen, Editor Tooth for a Tooth: Does Fighting Serve as a Deterrent to Greater Violence in the Modern NHL PONE-D-22-06821R1 Dear Dr. Betz, 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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, 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, Hans-Peter Simmen, M.D., Professor of Surgery Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269889.r003
Formally Accepted
6 Jun 2022 Acceptance Letter - Hans-Peter Simmen, Editor PONE-D-22-06821R1 Tooth for a Tooth: Does Fighting Serve as a Deterrent to Greater Violence in the Modern NHL Dear Dr. Betz: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. 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 plosone@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 Dr. Hans-Peter Simmen Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269889.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 .