Relation of Offensive Performance during Exclusions and Final Ranking in Female Handball

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

My comments and suggestions are attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see attachment with our point-by-point response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Personally, I would like to thank you the opportunity to review your manuscript. In general, this is an interesting research about handball exclusions situation. I have some concerns throughout the manuscript. For that reason, I hope my recommendations will help you to improve the manuscript.

Title: I think final position is not enough clear, you explain it later with the "final ranking obtained in the tournament". Maybe "Relation of performance during exclusions and final  ranking in the tournament in female handball" could be better, but this is just a suggestion.

Abstract is well estructured and clear. Just two points, "Chi-square test was applied to identify associations between the variables" chi-Square is usable in every condition, but thera are always better statistics than Chi-square. In methods you talk about Fisher’s exact test. The second point is about the use of acronymes as GI or GII tha are no explained (of course you explain it in Methods (procedures). You need to change it (eg. medallist teams instead of GI or last classified teams instead of GIII or what you consider better).

Introduction, really very clear and well focused, begining to explain about globlal sport, after that focusing in handball, after that explainin inequallity situations (numerical inferiority and superiority), finishing with the aims. Perfect.

Methods. Sample is apporpiated. The instrument is well explained, but it is no replicable. I understand the complexity of such question, but, maybe (just an oppinion than you can have into account or not), authors can include variables studied. Procedures are correct. In statistical analysis instead of chi-square you can use Cramer's V for nominal variables.

Methods means the point 2 of your study, sample has no number, but yes the other paragraphs (3. Instrument, 4. Procedures, 5. Statistical analysis) then results is the number 6. Please change this question. Results must be 3. Results, 4. Discussion, 5. References...

Results are very clear and well-structured. But the headins (Results during numerical inequality context as a consequence of exclusions; Results during superiority situations; Results during inferiority situations) must be in bold as in discussion chapter.

In tables you can explain what ASR means, and maybe ES p too. Take into account that you use Cramer's V in tables, you must change it in abstract and in methods chapters.

Discussion is excellent and references are correct

Congratulations by your paper.

Thanks again for let me try to improve your paper

Kindest Regards

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We here present a point-by-point response to your comments.

Kind regards.

Personally, I would like to thank you the opportunity to review your manuscript. In general, this is an interesting research about handball exclusions situation. I have some concerns throughout the manuscript. For that reason, I hope my recommendations will help you to improve the manuscript.

We would like to thank the reviewer for the kind help that we appreciate.

 

Title: I think final position is not enough clear, you explain it later with the "final ranking obtained in the tournament". Maybe "Relation of performance during exclusions and final ranking in the tournament in female handball" could be better, but this is just a suggestion.

We really appreciate the suggestion proposed and taking into consideration the reflection added by Reviewer 1, we have decided to modify the title as follows: “Relation of offensive performance during exclusions and final ranking in female handball”

 

Abstract is well estructured and clear. Just two points, "Chi-square test was applied to identify associations between the variables" chi-Square is usable in every condition, but thera are always better statistics than Chi-square. In methods you talk about Fisher’s exact test. The second point is about the use of acronymes as GI or GII tha are no explained (of course you explain it in Methods (procedures). You need to change it (eg. medallist teams instead of GI or last classified teams instead of GIII or what you consider better).

Thanks for this recommendation. We have added Fisher´s test in the abstract. Referring the use of acronyms (GI, GII and GIII) we took in consideration yours as well as reviewer 1 opinion, changing them for “medalist teams” and “not medalist teams”

 

 

Introduction, really very clear and well focused, begining to explain about globlal sport, after that focusing in handball, after that explainin inequallity situations (numerical inferiority and superiority), finishing with the aims. Perfect.

Thanks for this opinion.

 

 

Methods. Sample is apporpiated. The instrument is well explained, but it is no replicable. I understand the complexity of such question, but, maybe (just an oppinion than you can have into account or not), authors can include variables studied. Procedures are correct. In statistical analysis instead of chi-square you can use Cramer's V for nominal variables.

Thanks for this important comment. We have added a table (Table 1) in the subsection “Instrument” of the Methods section. The table contains detailed information about the criterions and criteria that were used to collect data. We also have added a paragraph (the 2^nd paragraph) in the subsection “Procedures” of the Methods section where we detailed how variables were grouped into new ones for the purpose of this study. Referring to your comment about Cramer´s V for nominal variables, the use of this test is already mention in line 5 of the statistical analysis section. We consider that with both mentioned test we clarify the tests performed to analyze the relation between variables in a detailed way.

 

 

 

 

Methods means the point 2 of your study, sample has no number, but yes the other paragraphs (3. Instrument, 4. Procedures, 5. Statistical analysis) then results is the number 6. Please change this question. Results must be 3. Results, 4. Discussion, 5. References...

Thanks for this remark. We have numbered the sections following journal´s requirements. Numbers of each section was made by journal´s editor, therefore we will consider to take your suggestion once the article is finally accepted and final revision is asked by the journal.

 

 

Results are very clear and well-structured. But the headins (Results during numerical inequality context as a consequence of exclusions; Results during superiority situations; Results during inferiority situations) must be in bold as in discussion chapter.

Thanks for this suggestion. We proceeded to use bold font in headings of subsections of results.

 

 

In tables you can explain what ASR means, and maybe ES p too. Take into account that you use Cramer's V in tables, you must change it in abstract and in methods chapters.

Thanks for this comment. Information about the test performed in all three tables (now renamed Table 2, 3 and 4) was added in the respective descriptions. Also detailed information about the abbreviations meaning.

 

 

Discussion is excellent and references are correct.

Thanks for this comment.

 

Congratulations by your paper.

Thanks for the suggestions to improve the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I accept all responses and corrections. I accept in present form and I recommend the manuscript for publication.

Sincerely yours, 

Reviewer 1