The Relationship between Specific Game-Based and General Performance in Young Adult Elite Male Team Handball Players

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your prominent research. In the analyzed paper, you have focused on analyzing the relationship between game-based and general performance in young elite male team handball players, and reducing the elevated number of tests for diagnostics in handball teams.

According to this reviewer, significant modifications are required although the originality, scientific potential, and empirical application. In this sense, the manuscript “applsci-2164971” needs major and minor adjustments, including a minimal structure change. All criticism points are presented in sequence according to this comment.

MAJOR COMMENTS:

1. The abstract needs to be improved. The background utilizes a lot of words and the results are almost not shown in the summary. Also, the discussion and the conclusion are repetitive in this section. Finally, it does not adequately present the answer to the two objectives presented.

2. Table 1 is difficult to understand and requires adjustments. Presenting the 95% confidence interval on a second line with the variable titles with alignment centered is difficult for the visual analysis. Furthermore, the use of a title line in the middle of the table does not comply with the ICMJE recommendations.

3. The table 1 presentation in the paper occurs before lines 281 and 282. These lines contain the text with table information and appear after its presentation. Please correct this.

4. The text with the table 2 information appears on line 283 and from figure 2 on line 308. On the other hand, table 2 is presented on line 315 while figure 2 is on line 311. In addition, table 2 is extensive and difficult to understand. Is there any way for you to improve the presentation of this table?

5. Is figure 3 really necessary? Why were these variables chosen for the X and Y axes? For example, the relationship between body weight and bench press 1RM (box F). What is the relevance of this empirically known linear relationship to the study? Finally, the letter r squared (determination coefficient) is also lowercase.

6. Please verify two paragraphs of the discussion section. The paragraph between lines 346 and 378 is too long. The same situation is found in the paragraph between lines 379 and 396. I understand that the paragraph length depends on the document type and that the authors limited each paragraph to one variable or question. But, most of the English manual styles recommend keeping most paragraphs to 2 or 3 clear sentences using fewer than 25 words by sentence. Please correct this.

MINOR COMMENTS:

1. Please verify in line 78: “2. Materials and Methods”. This head title is presented incorrectly.

2.  Please verify in lines 267-8 the sentence: […] Pearson Product-Moment correlation coefficients (R). R was categorized […]. The “r” of the linear correlation coefficient is incorrectly displayed (capital letter). Even with the authors having the freedom to abbreviate words and terms, please adopt the correct spelling for the statistics presented.

3. Only 6 (26.1%) of the 23 references are from the last 5 years. All current references linked to the objective of the research are included/discussed in the paper?

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her helpful comments. We have tried to follow all of your comments and have revised our manuscript to the best of our ability. We have added recommendations to all of your comments and used the Word Tracking function to highlight the changes in the manuscript; hopefully, you are able to follow our revision.

Reviewer #1:

Thank you for the opportunity to review your prominent research. In the analyzed paper, you have focused on analyzing the relationship between game-based and general performance in young elite male team handball players, and reducing the elevated number of tests for diagnostics in handball teams.

According to this reviewer, significant modifications are required although the originality, scientific potential, and empirical application. In this sense, the manuscript “applsci-2164971” needs major and minor adjustments, including a minimal structure change. All criticism points are presented in sequence according to this comment.

MAJOR COMMENTS:

1. The abstract needs to be improved. The background utilizes a lot of words and the results are almost not shown in the summary. Also, the discussion and the conclusion are repetitive in this section. Finally, it does not adequately present the answer to the two objectives presented.

A: We improved the abstract by reducing the background, including the results of the study, and rephrasing the conclusion (L14-35).

2. Table 1 is difficult to understand and requires adjustments. Presenting the 95% confidence interval on a second line with the variable titles with alignment centered is difficult for the visual analysis. Furthermore, the use of a title line in the middle of the table does not comply with the ICMJE recommendations.

A: We amended Table 1 in accordance with your suggestion and the ICMJE recommendations (Table 1).

3. The table 1 presentation in the paper occurs before lines 281 and 282. These lines contain the text with table information and appear after its presentation. Please correct this.

A: Correct, as suggested by the reviewer (L283-289).

4. The text with the table 2 information appears on line 283 and from figure 2 on line 308. On the other hand, table 2 is presented on line 315 while figure 2 is on line 311. In addition, table 2 is extensive and difficult to understand. Is there any way for you to improve the presentation of this table?

A: As suggested, we reorganized the text, Table 2, and Figure 2 to enable a better structure of the methods (L289-346). Regarding the improvement of Table 2, we discussed intensively how we should organize it, and we think this is the best way to show all the results. However, for a better visualization of the results, we selected representative relationships for Figure 3.

5. Is figure 3 really necessary? Why were these variables chosen for the X and Y axes? For example, the relationship between body weight and bench press 1RM (box F). What is the relevance of this empirically known linear relationship to the study? Finally, the letter r squared (determination coefficient) is also lowercase.

A: As mentioned previously, Figure 3 is necessary for a better visualization of the results. However, we have found a better justification for the selection of the variables (L325-334).

6. Please verify two paragraphs of the discussion section. The paragraph between lines 346 and 378 is too long. The same situation is found in the paragraph between lines 379 and 396. I understand that the paragraph length depends on the document type and that the authors limited each paragraph to one variable or question. But, most of the English manual styles recommend keeping most paragraphs to 2 or 3 clear sentences using fewer than 25 words by sentence. Please correct this.

A: Corrected, as per reviewer suggestion (L364-421).

MINOR COMMENTS:

1. Please verify in line 78: “2. Materials and Methods”. This head title is presented incorrectly.

A: It was presented incorrectly, and we have corrected it (L89).

2.  Please verify in lines 267-8 the sentence: […] Pearson Product-Moment correlation coefficients (R). R was categorized […]. The “r” of the linear correlation coefficient is incorrectly displayed (capital letter). Even with the authors having the freedom to abbreviate words and terms, please adopt the correct spelling for the statistics presented.

A: Correct, as suggested by the reviewer (L278).

3. Only 6 (26.1%) of the 23 references are from the last 5 years. All current references linked to the objective of the research are included/discussed in the paper?

A: As per your suggestion and the suggestion of reviewer #2, we improved our references and added more relevant papers to the discussion (L475-490).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author!

The manuscript is a well - constructed, novel and high quality work. However the introduction section should be composed more precisely regarding the methods (GBPT should be detailed).

The goals of the research were to analyze the relationship between specific game-based and general physical test performance and reduce the number of tests for a more practical implementation of physical performance diagnostics in team handball among youth players.

1. In all ball games (handball, soccer, basketball), academies working with young players find it challenging to develop test batteries that are proven to be related to game requirements, appropriate for routine testing of sport-specific performance, as well as for identifying talents and selecting players. For daily use, these tests should be brief and uncomplicated.

By comparing the results of a reliable game-specific test (GBPT) with those of general performance tests, the authors reveal an appropriate method for researching the relationship between the two types of tests, and giving proof about the relationship between them.

2. Although some authors, such as Wagner and Hinz, have researched GBPT in handball, there is no comparison among adolescent players like the one the authors made in this manuscript. However, I believe it's critical to carry out similar studies in various age or gender groups to validate the findings of other authors and make research results comparable. This study adds new knowledge to the field and it is important and relevant.
3. For measuring handball performance, the GBPT is a validated (Wagner, 2016) and sport-specific tool, but it takes a lot of time and resources. For academies training young athletes, replacing the game-based performance tests with less expensive, simpler tests that measure the same skills is necessary and crucial. This study provides evidence based options for substituting GBPT tests with others that produce the same results.
4. The methods are well detailed, simple to comprehend. Although more sophisticated tools could have been used for measuring GBPT test, the authors' use of the equipment was appropriate, and the most crucial aspect of any scientific study is that the repeatability is conducted. However, a brief summary of GBPT should be included in the abstract section.
5. The conclusions provide answers to the key questions and are supported by evidence and arguments.
6. The reference section can be improved; adding more relevant papers to the discussion section is required.
7. The information in Figure 1 can be understood by reading the manuscript's text, and yet it could be more detailed and informative.
   

 

Author Response

The manuscript is a well - constructed, novel and high quality work. However the introduction section should be composed more precisely regarding the methods (GBPT should be detailed).

A: We agree with the reviewer that it is important to add some detailed information about the GBPT in the abstract (paragraph #4), but we do not agree to add more methodological details to the introduction. In our last paper submitted to this journal, two reviewers argued that we should not add too many details about the methods (it was a different method, neither the GBPT nor another physical performance test) in the introduction. Consequently, we would prefer a short overview (including some results from previous studies) in the introduction and more details in the methods, as is the case in the present form of the manuscript.

The goals of the research were to analyze the relationship between specific game-based and general physical test performance and reduce the number of tests for a more practical implementation of physical performance diagnostics in team handball among youth players.

1. In all ball games (handball, soccer, basketball), academies working with young players find it challenging to develop test batteries that are proven to be related to game requirements, appropriate for routine testing of sport-specific performance, as well as for identifying talents and selecting players. For daily use, these tests should be brief and uncomplicated.

By comparing the results of a reliable game-specific test (GBPT) with those of general performance tests, the authors reveal an appropriate method for researching the relationship between the two types of tests, and giving proof about the relationship between them.

A: Thank you for your comment; it was important for us to demonstrate this appropriate method in our study.

1. Although some authors, such as Wagner and Hinz, have researched GBPT in handball, there is no comparison among adolescent players like the one the authors made in this manuscript. However, I believe it's critical to carry out similar studies in various age or gender groups to validate the findings of other authors and make research results comparable. This study adds new knowledge to the field and it is important and relevant.

A: Thank you for your comment; it was important for us to add this new and relevant knowledge into our study.

1. For measuring handball performance, the GBPT is a validated (Wagner, 2016) and sport-specific tool, but it takes a lot of time and resources. For academies training young athletes, replacing the game-based performance tests with less expensive, simpler tests that measure the same skills is necessary and crucial. This study provides evidence based options for substituting GBPT tests with others that produce the same results.

A: The GBPT is a handball-specific test to determine specific physical performance, especially in elite team handball. However, it was very important for us to show a more practical method using less equipment, manpower, and time for non-elite and youth players. Thank you for this comment. 

1. The methods are well detailed, simple to comprehend. Although more sophisticated tools could have been used for measuring GBPT test, the authors' use of the equipment was appropriate, and the most crucial aspect of any scientific study is that the repeatability is conducted. However, a brief summary of GBPT should be included in the abstract section.

A: As per your suggestion, we added a brief summary to the sentence explaining the use of the GBPT in the methods8 (L22-23).

1. The conclusions provide answers to the key questions and are supported by evidence and arguments.

A: Thank you for this comment.

1. The reference section can be improved; adding more relevant papers to the discussion section is required.

A: As per your suggestion and the suggestion of reviewer #1, we improved our references and added more relevant papers to the discussion (L475-490).

1. The information in Figure 1 can be understood by reading the manuscript's text, and yet it could be more detailed and informative

A: We described the GBPT and the general tests as thoroughly as possible, referring to previous papers in team handball. We think that it is possible to repeat all tests following the methods described in our study; if you are missing some information, please be more specific!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations to the authors for the great work.

I have no further requests or comments.