Analysis of the Steps Cycle in the Action of Throwing in Competition in Men’s Elite Handball
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
As attached notes
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We have carefully considered all considerations in the document provided by you. Enclosed you will find our detailed answers to your inquiries.
Thank you for the time taken to review our paper and for giving us the chance to improve it. We respond point by point below.
General comments:
Point 1. Abstract: The abstract is relatively well written, however it does not contain absolute numbers or statistical values that make it difficult to understand the study. Another point is that the abstract is not formatted according to the journal's rules, and is not structured. Keywords are not included as descriptors in health sciences. Please review.
Authors: Thank you for your comment. Revised and modified.
Point 2: Introduction: It is relatively well written, however, in the fourth paragraph it mentions studies and only one reference was presented and it is not a review manuscript, reference “14”. Another important point is that the study problem is not clearly identified, which makes it difficult to understand the reason for the study, despite the objective and hypotheses raised.
Authors: Thank you for your comment. We added:
- Belcic, I., Rodić, S., Dukarić, V., Rupčić, T., & Knjaz, D. (2021). Do Blood Lactate Levels Affect the Kinematic Patterns of Jump Shots in Handball?. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(20), 10809.
- Akl, A. R., Hassan, I., Hassan, A., & Bishop, P. (2019). Relationship between Kinematic variables of jump throwing and ball velocity in elite handball players. Applied Sciences, 9(16), 3423.
Point 3: Methods: As for the participants, there should be an explanation of why to use world and European championships, since the participating teams are different which can lead to a bias that could cause errors in the results. Please justify why these teams were analyzed. The instrument and validity of the procedure by judges is possible, however, the chance of error tends to be greater. It would be feasible to try to justify more deeply how this was carried out and even the construct of the procedures for the proposed evaluation, such as citing other studies that justified the use of the instrument as it was performed. Statistical analysis should be better described, please consult Cohen (1988).
Authors: Thank you for your comment. Added “These championships were analyzed because they are fully representative of the elite teams in men's handball.”. Also, we modified part of the text clarifying the paragraph instruments.
Thank you for your input, reference revised.
Point 4: Results: Are presented satisfactorily. However, in view of what was mentioned in the methodology, other statistical values such as effect size could justify the findings. Please consider this.
In tables “3” and “4”, mainly, it would be feasible to present the exact values of “p”.
Authors: Thank you for your comments. Added in the manuscript.
Point 5: Discussion: The discussion was very small, statistical values from other studies were not presented, nor numerical values. The findings in the present study were not discussed exhaustively, few studies were presented in the discussion. The limitations of the study were not presented.
Authors: Thank you for your comments. The general discussion has been expanded and the limitations of the study added in the manuscript.
Point 6: Conclusion: Are presented satisfactorily. However, practical applications of the findings must be presented more clearly.
Authors: Thank you for your comments. The practical applications added.
Point 7: References:
In a total of 36 references, 17 are current, less than five years old and 19 have more than five years of publication. It would be nice to update the references.
Authors: Thank you for your comments. Update added.
Overview
The manuscript presented addresses a relevant research topic.
It would be advisable to do a general review
The authors hope that the corrections made are to your satisfaction and we can continue with the peer-review process of the manuscript.
Best regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
I have presented my comments in the attach (pdf file)
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We have carefully considered all considerations in the document provided by you. Enclosed you will find our detailed answers to your inquiries.
Thank you for the time taken to review our paper and for giving us the chance to improve it. The structure of the study has been improved. The scientific quality and references provided have been substantially improved. The study design has been improved following the example of other prestigious studies. Title corrected.
We respond point by point below.
Line 9-20: Abstract is vague on methods. It gives a list of variables collected and results. The final sentence with a conclusion is unclear to me. What is “dynamic wealth”?
Authors: Abstract revised and modified. “Dynamic wealth” changed to "dynamic improvement"
Line 32: Why is “opposition” not just called defence?
Authors: Thank you for your comment. “Oppsition” changed to "cooperation teams sports”.
Line 51: What are examples of these rules changes? Do you include this in your discussion?
Authors: The handball has become faster, and the rule change enabled the simple practicality of playing with an extra player and an empty goal. Included in the manuscript.
Line 64-65: Can I assume you mean that the participants were informed of the purpose of the study and signed informed consent? Where these matches video taped all the time or only for your study?
Authors: Added in the manuscript: “Participants were informed of the purpose of the study and signed an informed consent following. These matches were videotaped at all time. The recordings and sequencing of shots from each match were analyzed, (match analysis)”
Line 71-76: How did you collect all this info. Did you analysis all the throws in a match or only a selection?
Authors: All throws from all matches were analyzed.
Line 98: this section is incomplete; the abstract states: None of the variables you mention are described in the methods section. E.g. How did you measure throwing speed? is this ball speed? What is throwing efficiency? You do not actually mention that matches were all semi-finals and finals.
Authors: Abstract corrected. All the variables have been listed in table 2 below.
Line 115: European championship final Is Sweden-Denmark. Sweden is missing and Denmark is spelled incorrectly.
Authors: Table corrected.
Line 115 (table): There is a big difference between total goals per match (42 goals - 66 goals) but also difference in score between the two teams (1 goals to 9 goals difference) what is the differences in your results between a high and low scoring game and a close game and an easy win? An outside observer would expect a semi or final game to be close all the time.
Authors: It is true that sometimes there is a big difference between the total goals per game and the difference in the score between the two teams. That is why we analyze the effectiveness of each throw in relation to the variables.
Line 115 (table): What is throwing technique? Step cycle is actually Nr of steps? I think you should define the UNITS of your variables. I could think height was in CM and speed was M/s but in table 4 I find out it is something else.
Authors: All the variables have been listed in table 2 below.
Line 138: None of these variables are defined in the methods section. Further the intercorrelation between variables is not defined. How is throwing height and or distance related?. What are the combinations leading to success? Some like factor analysis.
Authors: All the variables have been listed in table 2 below.
Line 138: What is a “significant Pearson's chi square between all study variables” What exactly is related to what? When I read the results section I cannot find the results described when I examine the table. I only see numbers indicated as significant.
Authors: Pearson's chi-square table eliminated.
Line 149: “this could be”, speculation. Did you find this or do you think this is what your results tell you?
Authors: Changed to present and added reference confirms this.
Line 152-155: It seems to me that the closer you are to the goal the more chance you have to score. But I do not think you consider the angle of attack. Throwing from the front of the goal or from the side is a different situation if e.g. the goal keeper "cuts” down the angle. Also the more steps you take the more time the keeper has to prepare? Later on you discuss this. You also never mention in which direction (zone) the throw is taken. High, low, left or right of the keeper.
Authors: Thank you for your comment. Indeed, the closer you are to the goal, the more chances you have of scoring a goal. Normally, close shots are taken at a low angle. This means that statistically there is no difference in efficiency. Explained in the manuscript.
Line 185-190: This is a clear summary of your results and should be included in some form in the abstract.
Authors: Included in a numerical form in the abstract.
Line 191-194: This is a general statement without real content. You say you need to train the “step cycle” but never say how or when (at what age) etc.
Authors: Added in the manuscript: Coaches should propose exercises that modify the step cycle at all ages. Training throws from nine meters with two steps is the optimal way to increase performance in handball.
The authors hope that the corrections made are to your satisfaction and we can continue with the peer-review process of the manuscript.
Best regards.
Reviewer 3 Report
The purpose of the study might be merit in the case that the author(s) proves something that is not well-known so far and structure it adequately. However, this manuscript is not ready for publication in your reputable journal, mostly due to the reason the author(s) didn't reach the scientific quality level that requires MDPI at the first place, as well as did not structured the manuscript according to the basic methodological rules. Study design and conclusions could have fatal flaws, mostly due to the reason that author(s) didn't use the adequate structure or did not present it well. I addition the writing style is questionable (there is typo in the title), as well as some other issues that do not need to be listed when the already specified are not adequate.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We have carefully considered all considerations in the document provided by you. Enclosed you will find our detailed answers to your inquiries.
Thank you for the time taken to review our paper and for giving us the chance to improve it. The structure of the study has been improved. The scientific quality and references provided have been substantially improved. The study design has been improved following the example of other prestigious studies. Title corrected.
The authors hope that the corrections made are to your satisfaction and we can continue with the peer-review process of the manuscript.
Best regards
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Bearing in mind that the adjustments were all made, within what was pointed out, I consider that the manuscript is in a condition to be published.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the time taken to review our paper and for giving us the chance to improve it.
The authors hope that the corrections made are to your satisfaction and we can we finish the peer-review process of the manuscript.
Best regards.
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you to the authors for their work in revisions. Nevertheless, I have two problems. I think the English needs an extensive revision. Unfortunately it now appears to be something often taken from a translation “machine” or English from a commercial editing office not completely familiar with the field in question. This is particularly the case in the discussion. This can cause confusion and is a little “heavy”. The tense (singular or plural) is sometimes incorrect. Further, there are some technical editing questions for example in the abstract line 17-18 where six metres should be 6m? I think there are several places where numbers are written out in words but that the nr. itself should be used. Metres is also British English while meters is USA English. This is a point for the editor.
On table 4. I would also add the total of the Total. So, you actually analysed 1013 throws.
Finally, there is still no answer to my question about position of the throws (shots on goal). I understand in handball that the throw has to come from outside the 6 m line (semi circle). But, I can attack the goal from e.g. directly in front or in the worst case from a position at the base line with almost no direct line at the open goal. I would think that most throws (shots on goal) are taken from the zone inside a 45° angle to the goal posts with the base line being
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
Dear Reviewer,
We have carefully considered all considerations in the document provided by you. Enclosed you will find our detailed answers to your inquiries.
Thank you for the time taken to review our paper and for giving us the chance to improve it. We respond point by point below.
Point 1: line 17-18. where six metres should be 6m? I think there are several places where numbers are written out in words but that the nr. itself should be used.
Authors: Thank you for your comment. Revised and modified.
Point 2: Metres is also British English while meters is USA English.
Authors: Thank you for your comment. Revised and modified.
Point 3: On table 4. I would also add the total of the Total. So, you actually analysed 1013 throws.
Authors: Authors: Thank you for your comment. Indeed, a total of 1013 releases were analyzed.
Point 4: I understand in handball that the throw has to come from outside the 6 m line (semi-circle). But, I can attack the goal from e.g. directly in front or in the worst case from a position at the base line with almost no direct line at the open goal. I would think that most throws (shots on goal) are taken from the zone inside a 45° angle to the goal posts with the base line being.
Authors: Thank you for your comment. Added “Table 2: ±45° angle to the goal posts with the base line”.
The authors hope that the corrections made are to your satisfaction and we can continue with the peer-review process of the manuscript.
Best regards.
Reviewer 3 Report
N/A
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the time taken to review our paper and for giving us the chance to improve it.
The authors hope that the corrections made are to your satisfaction and we can we finish the peer-review process of the manuscript.
Best regards.
The authors
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
I have no further comments for the authors.
