PONE-D-23-29988Effects of High-intensity Interval Training on Strength, Speed, and Endurance Performance among Racket Sports Players: A Systematic ReviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liu,

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: The reviewers present relevant questions about the study. Please elaborate a point-by-point answer.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 30 2023 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,

Leonardo Vidal Andreato, PhD

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

[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: N/A

**********

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: No

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: No

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: Dear Authors,

The manuscript is well-written and deals with an important topic, and I appreciate the exciting insights your article provides. However, after reviewing the manuscript thoroughly, I have some suggestions for your review. The study has a sound method and content but suffers from many spelling mistakes. Therefore, you need to edit the entire text. Moreover, it is necessary to fully adapt the article to the English language rules.

Page 1: use shortened versions throughout the text (High-Intensity Interval Training) (HIIT)

Page 1: Write which racquet sports they are. “table tennis, tennis, and badminton”, add key words or abstract to the section

Page 2: Reference numbers in the all text are written incorrectly. Check and correct reference numbers throughout the text.

Page 27: use the short form (High-Intensity Interval Training) (HIIT)

References section: check the References (1, 34, 75 control and check the fonts)

Reviewer #2: Review of the article “Effects of high-intensity interval; training on strength, speed and endurance performance among racket sports players: a systematic review”

General Note

In this manuscript, the authors aimed to systematically review the literature on the influence of high-intensity interval training on the strength, speed, and endurance performance of racket sports athletes. After applying the search strategy at four databases and on google scholar and reference lists, the authors included 10 studies in their review. After analyzing the results, the authors emphasizes HIIT as a strategy to improve overall athletic performance comparing to others training methods. The manuscript fits the Plos One scope. Follow bellow some general notes and minor concerns for each section.

General Concerns

Introduction

The introduction session is very extensive. The authors dedicate several pages to approach the problem, justify the investigation and expose the gaps in the specific literature. I agree is utmost important that we have to conduct a “story telling” and “sell the idea”. However, research papers must be objective, precise and direct to the point. It is not the case of the introduction session. The authors used 3 paragraphs to explain HIIT effects on racket sports and, surprisingly, in none of these paragraphs the authors explain what is HIIT. My suggestion to the authors is to collapse the 3 paragraphs in one.

At introduction section, the sentence “Racket athletes often rely on the ATP-CP energy system for short energy bursts,…”. In fact, to perform a specific movement, it is expected that the phosphagens systems were the prominent system to offer energy, however, during all exercise session, the body will migrate from one system to another. As a suggestion, maybe the authors agree to adjust the sentence and be more specific.

Finally, at the end of the introduction section, the authors state that “…research focusing specifically on racket sports remains limited. Notably, there is a lack of systematic reviews examining the physical effects of HIIT on athletes in racket sports.” I believe this sentence is ambiguous since if research in rackets sports remains limited, it is not possible to conduct a robust review with conclusive findings. Maybe the authors consider rewriting the sentences.

Methods

At this section, the authors make a common mistake when trying to review the literature with high-intensity interval exercise. Specific literature on HIIT attested that 11 variables could be manipulated to build a HIIT session. In this sense, is extremely difficult to aggregate HIIT studies to a common analysis since the several possibilities to organize a HIIT protocol. It was expected that at some part of the review, the authors demonstrate and explore the HIIT protocols of the 10 selected. Maybe the author agrees to include in table 3 the adopted protocols. Further, I suggest including why the terminology High-intensity interval training was the chosen one, since it is possible to find studies applying “high intensity interval exercise”; “high intensity intermittent training”; “high intensity intermittent exercise”; “repeated sprint training”; “sprint interval exercise”; among other possibilities.

**********

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: Yes: Marcelo Marques

**********

[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: MM_Review PONE D-23-29988.pdf

Effects of High-intensity Interval Training on Strength, Speed, and Endurance Performance among  Racket Sports  Players: A Systematic Review

PONE-D-23-29988R1

Dear Dr. Liu,

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,

Leonardo Vidal Andreato, PhD

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 #2: 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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 #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: Congrats for the manuscript. It was a pleasure to review this revised version. I hope I contributed to this manuscript.

**********

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 #2: Yes: Marcelo Marques

**********