Jumping Flying Distance and Jump Performance of Elite Male Volleyball Players at FIVB Volleyball Men’s World Championship
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper in general is interesting, especially given the sample used (quantity and sports level). However, it needs some work before it can be published.
Major comments (see some specific comments in attached file):
Abstract:
It needs to be worked on in many ways (see comments in the attached file of the article, pdf). It needs a thorough review of English, more clarification in the methodology, and a more assertive conclusion regarding the objectives outlined for the paper.
Introduction
The introduction presents sufficient information in terms of theoretical framework / background, however not always well organized. Once again the quality of English is low which makes it difficult to follow the text. The authors clarify the need for further studies on the study problem, but the importance of the problem itself has not been clarified (why is it necessary to have information on the variability of performance among high level players?). See the comments for more information.
Methods
Nothing major to add; only the need to mention whether this analysis was carried out by the same researcher or more than one.
Results
The presentation of the results is a little confusing. Apart from the first paragraph, the rest needs some clarification and reformulation, for example: there is probably text that can be deleted (the description seems too exhaustive) because there is longer a table/figure that presents the results in an exhaustive way; it seems that the authors used a t-test instead of the ANOVA test (mentioned on the statistical section), which does not seem appropriate to this analysis (possibility of type I and II errors); figures should highlight the variables that differ significantly from each other.
Discussion and conclusion.
It will be revised in the next version, taking into account the necessary changes to the results.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: It needs to be worked on in many ways (see comments in the attached file of the article, pdf). It needs a thorough review of English, more clarification in the methodology, and a more assertive conclusion regarding the objectives outlined for the paper.
ANSWER: Thank You for clear message on paper quality. We’ve checked all paper once more and made some necessary corrections. We must underline that manuscript was professionally checked and corrected. Please check certificate in attachments.
ACTION: English correction was performed. Methodology was corrected and conclusion was totally rewritten. We add following sentences (in manuscript body marked in red):
The results of experiment showed a high degree of reliability for jump height during serve and attack, jumping flying distance covered during an attack, and the number of block jumps. The strongest relationship was seen between jump components, which predominantly depend only on a volleyball player performing a specific action (e.g. jump serve or attack jump). Volleyball players jump at the height of approximately 96.5% when performing an attack and 81.5% and 88.8% when performing a serve and block respectively.
The results showed also both differences and similarities regarding the number of jumps executed during the game. In turn, the number of jumps depends not only on the level of the player, but primarily on the position in which the volleyball player plays. It is also close connected toward tactics which become repeated game strategies.
The game strategy itself depends on training, with special focus on jumping abilities. Therefore it would seem reasonable to individualize jump training for volleyball players performing different functions on the court, taking into account the number and height of jumps performed during a game.
It would be reasonable to enrich a training with an element that aims at instructing on how to improve jumping potential of volleyball player program (the plyometric one), which would directly increase impact the results of the game and decrease potential of injury.
Point 2:
Introduction
The introduction presents sufficient information in terms of theoretical framework / background, however not always well organized. Once again the quality of English is low which makes it difficult to follow the text. The authors clarify the need for further studies on the study problem, but the importance of the problem itself has not been clarified (why is it necessary to have information on the variability of performance among high level players?). See the comments for more information.
ANSWER: Thank You for important suggestions. Manuscript was professionally checked and corrected. Please check certificate in attachments. Please read following clarification of the scientific problem. Obtained results showed that volleyball training needs individualisation. JFD index is an important message of this experiment. It brings important information about jumping activity of the players. The game strategy itself depends on training, with special focus on jumping abilities. Therefore it would seem reasonable to individualize jump training for volleyball players performing different functions on the court, taking into account the number and height of jumps performed during a game.
ACTION: All introduction part has been changed. We provide explanation for Your question in the beginning of discussion and in conclusion part.
Point 3:
Methods:
Nothing major to add; only the need to mention whether this analysis was carried out by the same researcher or more than one.
ANSWER: Thank You for positive opinion on that part of our manuscript.
ACTION: All measurement was performed by the same qualified researcher.
Point 4.
Results
The presentation of the results is a little confusing. Apart from the first paragraph, the rest needs some clarification and reformulation, for example: there is probably text that can be deleted (the description seems too exhaustive) because there is longer a table/figure that presents the results in an exhaustive way; it seems that the authors used a t-test instead of the ANOVA test (mentioned on the statistical section), which does not seem appropriate to this analysis (possibility of type I and II errors); figures should highlight the variables that differ significantly from each other.
ANSWER: Thank You for pointing weak point of our statistics and results.
ACTION: We recalculate data using only ANOVA. All results section was rewritten.
Point 5:
Discussion and conclusion.
It will be revised in the next version, taking into account the necessary changes to the results.
.
ANSWER: It was very important note from You.
ACTION: Discussion section was corrected and conclusions were completely rewritten.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript presents innovative results regarding jump performance of elite male volleyball players. Due to its innovation, the paper could be published in the Applied Sciences journal provided that the following changes are made within the document:
- The authors say in the Introduction that the main difference of the proposed study with respect to reference [3] is that, in such study, the groups under analysis were formed by young people. Considering that they were elite players too, what was the average age of players in [3]?
- Some photographs or pictures regarding the analysis of jump height, detection, and distance calculation would be welcome.
- I suggest the addition of results regarding the evolution of jump performance as the match progresses (it is expected to be progressively lower). The comparison could be carried out at least between each half of the match.
- The equations should be properly numbered throughout the manuscript.
- I recommend the editing of the manuscript by a professional proofreading service.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1:
This manuscript presents innovative results regarding jump performance of elite male volleyball players. Due to its innovation, the paper could be published in the Applied Sciences journal provided that the following changes are made within the document:
The authors say in the Introduction that the main difference of the proposed study with respect to reference [3] is that, in such study, the groups under analysis were formed by young people. Considering that they were elite players too, what was the average age of players in [3]?
ANSWER: Your question regard age of volunteers in work Sheppard et al. (2009) is important. In our study it was 27.05 ± 4.33 and in Sheepard study was 20.9 ± 2.6. For professional players such a difference in age should not influence obtained results. But Your point can be usefull for next study aimed on such a comparsion.
Point 2:
Some photographs or pictures regarding the analysis of jump height, detection, and distance calculation would be welcome.
ANSWER: We agree with Your idea.
ACTION: We added two figures. Figure 1 and Figure 3.
Point 3:
I suggest the addition of results regarding the evolution of jump performance as the match progresses (it is expected to be progressively lower). The comparison could be carried out at least between each half of the match.
ANSWER: Thank You for important suggestion. We calculated mentioned parameters in each half of the match but differences was statistically not significant. In that case we decide to not publish it. Your idea is very promising so we try to perform such a analysis in next experiment.
Point 4:
The equations should be properly numbered throughout the manuscript.
ANSWER: Your suggestion was very pointed and important.
ACTION: All equations were properly numbered.
Point 5:
I recommend the editing of the manuscript by a professional proofreading service.
ANSWER: Thank You for clear message on paper quality. We’ve checked all paper once more and made some necessary corrections. We must underline that manuscript was professionally checked and corrected. Please check certificate in attachments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
