Sports Performance Analysis of Wheelchair Basketball Players Considering Functional Classification

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that the work corresponds to the general and specific requirements for the elaboration of an authentic research work. Chapter 1 is correctly done, it clarifies the theoretical aspects that delimit the researched topic. The Materials and methods chapter adequately illustrates the way the research was carried out: participants, stamps, instruments. The results are amply and clearly presented. Meticulous analysis of physical demands and performance indicators in wheelchair basketball is objectified in the Discussions, particularly insightful differentiation based on levels of functional ability, providing invaluable information for coaches to adapt training regimens, optimize player development and improve team performance in real game scenarios. The bibliographic sources are valid, recent and related to the topic.

Author Response

I and my fellow authors would like to thank you for reviewing this manuscript and for the comments, which have enriched this manuscript. We have adequately addressed the comments. However, if you deem more changes necessary, we look forward to addressing any other concerns.

 

Review Report Form (Reviewer 1)

 

Open Review

 

(x) I would not like to sign my review report 

( ) I would like to sign my review report 

 

Quality of English Language

 

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper 
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible 
( ) Extensive editing of English language required 
( ) Moderate editing of English language required 
( ) Minor editing of English language required 
( ) English language fine. No issues detected 

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

I believe that the work corresponds to the general and specific requirements for the elaboration of an authentic research work. Chapter 1 is correctly done, it clarifies the theoretical aspects that delimit the researched topic. The Materials and methods chapter adequately illustrates the way the research was carried out: participants, stamps, instruments. The results are amply and clearly presented. Meticulous analysis of physical demands and performance indicators in wheelchair basketball is objectified in the Discussions, particularly insightful differentiation based on levels of functional ability, providing invaluable information for coaches to adapt training regimens, optimize player development and improve team performance in real game scenarios. The bibliographic sources are valid, recent and related to the topic.

 

Authors: Thank you so much for your comments. We appreciate your reports.

 

Submission Date

29 April 2024

Date of this review

14 May 2024 12:43:17

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research is interesting, but some clarifications can be made: What were the exercises that were used in the research? For a reader unfamiliar with disability categories, a brief introduction is advisable, what are they? Line 63. What performance are we talking about in this target group? Row 109-111. It would be preferable to present some assigned tasks. Row 115 It doesn't appear out of nowhere which are the exercises tracked, used! Row 117-118. What game tasks are we talking about in relation to technical-tactical content? Line 119. An enumeration would be preferable, examples of information tracked and obtained. Row 203; 205. What are the techniques that improve performance and again we go back to line 63, what performance are we talking about? Line 213 We recall the tasks, but what are they (117-118)? Row 225 Desires can be proposed and realized in another future article! Row 227 And yet what are the other FC categories? Are the other categories part of this study? Does the study include topics across the spectrum of functional abilities from 1.0 to 4.5? I recommend reformulating the conclusions based on the data obtained and avoiding wishful thinking or subjective perspectives (line 259). The conclusions can confirm or deny the approach of the authors, and if it is positive, a point-by-point enumeration would be preferable.

Author Response

I and my fellow authors would like to thank you for reviewing this manuscript and for the comments, which have enriched this manuscript. We have adequately addressed the comments. However, if you deem more changes necessary, we look forward to addressing any other concerns.

 

Review Report Form (Reviewer 2)

 

Open Review

 

( ) I would not like to sign my review report 

(x) I would like to sign my review report 

Quality of English Language

 

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper 
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible 
( ) Extensive editing of English language required 
( ) Moderate editing of English language required 
( ) Minor editing of English language required 
( ) English language fine. No issues detected 

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The research is interesting, but some clarifications can be made: 

 

Authors: Thank you so much for your comments. We appreciate your reports. We have considered all your notes and carried out all the modifications suggested in order to improve the quality of the article.

 

What were the exercises that were used in the research? 

 

Authors: thank you so much for your comments. This information is shown in lines 27 and 28. All the tasks where a 5x5 game simulation was carried out were included in the analyses.

 

For a reader unfamiliar with disability categories, a brief introduction is advisable, what are they? 

 

Authors: thank you so much for your perspective. A short brief of this information has been added at the beginning of the abstract.

 

Line 63. What performance are we talking about in this target group?

 

Authors: thank you so much for your perspective. This information has been corrected. There was a mistake in the use of the term.

 

Row 109-111. It would be preferable to present some assigned tasks. 

 

Authors: thank you so much for your notes. This information has been added.

 

Row 115 It doesn't appear out of nowhere which are the exercises tracked, used! 

 

Authors: thank you so much for your comments. This information is shown a few rows above. All the 5 × 5 simulation games tasks were monitored.

 

Row 117-118. What game tasks are we talking about in relation to technical-tactical content? 

 

Authors: thank you so much for your perspective. All the game simulation tasks were included in the analyses. The aim of including this type of task is to analyse the sports performance regarding the functional classification.

 

Line 119. An enumeration would be preferable, examples of information tracked and obtained. 

 

Authors: thank you so much for your notes. The authors think that this information is enough because if they add an example, it could increase the length of the article. This information is about the quantity of data that the inertial device recorded because for the analysis the mean was used.

 

Row 203; 205. What are the techniques that improve performance and again we go back to line 63, what performance are we talking about?

 

Authors: thank you so much for your information. This term has been changed; it was a mistake during the article development.

 

Line 213 We recall the tasks, but what are they (117-118)?

 

Authors: thank you so much for this comment. This information has been specified in lines 121-122 and 113-114.

 

Row 225 Desires can be proposed and realized in another future article!

 

Authors: thank you so much for your comments. This information has been added to the future lines of research.

 

Row 227 And yet what are the other FC categories? Are the other categories part of this study? Does the study include topics across the spectrum of functional abilities from 1.0 to 4.5?

 

Authors: thank you so much for your comments. Results according to the rest of the categories have been added to increase the quality of the discussion section.

 

I recommend reformulating the conclusions based on the data obtained and avoiding wishful thinking or subjective perspectives (line 259).

 

Authors: thank you so much for your notes. The conclusions have been modified and include some information.

 

The conclusions can confirm or deny the approach of the authors, and if it is positive, a point-by-point enumeration would be preferable.

 

Authors: thank you so much for your perspective. The conclusions have been modified.

 

Submission Date

 

29 April 2024

Date of this review

 

15 May 2024 10:58:30

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting send manuscript “Sports Performance Analysis of Wheelchair Basketball Players Considering the Functional Classification”. After reviewing mentioned above scientific paper I would like to require my advices. Below I am sending You outline possible points for revision in the chronological order of the manuscript.

Analyzing the scientific article sent by the authors, it should be said that the topic of the work and the research conducted is very interesting. However, it seems reasonable to conclude that comparing the results of the study of only 12 selected athletes is not authoritative. The authors state in their publication that: “The main results show that players with greater functional capacity (FC=4.0) develop higher values in the IL and neuromuscular variables analyzed (p<0.05), as well as for some kinematic variables like distance, Dec and Average speed (p<0.05).” However, it is difficult to compare FC (4,0) players with FC (3,0) because we are only comparing 3 players against two. Therefore, despite the reliability in the research conducted, it is not possible to draw conclusions and practical conclusions for the group studied. The results of the study should be reconstructed by adding more athletes studied (if this is not possible) then looking for the relationship between body weight, training seniority, sports performance and FC.

In addition, the authors very often use words in a scientific publication: "they help, we contracted, we organized, we had" - please change the above-mentioned words to impersonal ones.

In addition, in the discussion of the submitted scientific publication, the authors do little to compare other publications and do not discuss the research results obtained. 

References - please check the following references (there is lack of page(s)). 2, 4, 21, 23, 29, 34, 36, 40.

Author Response

I and my fellow authors would like to thank you for reviewing this manuscript and for the comments, which have enriched this manuscript. We have adequately addressed the comments. However, if you deem more changes necessary, we look forward to addressing any other concerns.

 

Review Report Form (Reviewer 3)

 

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report 

( ) I would like to sign my review report 

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper 
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible 
( ) Extensive editing of English language required 
( ) Moderate editing of English language required 
( ) Minor editing of English language required 
(x) English language fine. No issues detected 

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Thank you for submitting send manuscript “Sports Performance Analysis of Wheelchair Basketball Players Considering the Functional Classification”. After reviewing mentioned above scientific paper I would like to require my advices. Below I am sending You outline possible points for revision in the chronological order of the manuscript.

 

Authors: Thank you so much for your comments. We appreciate your reports. We have considered all your notes and carried out all the modifications suggested to improve the quality of the article.

 

Analyzing the scientific article sent by the authors, it should be said that the topic of the work and the research conducted is very interesting. However, it seems reasonable to conclude that comparing the results of the study of only 12 selected athletes is not authoritative. The authors state in their publication that: “The main results show that players with greater functional capacity (FC=4.0) develop higher values in the IL and neuromuscular variables analyzed (p<0.05), as well as for some kinematic variables like distance, Dec and Average speed (p<0.05).” However, it is difficult to compare FC (4,0) players with FC (3,0) because we are only comparing 3 players against two. Therefore, despite the reliability in the research conducted, it is not possible to draw conclusions and practical conclusions for the group studied. The results of the study should be reconstructed by adding more athletes studied (if this is not possible) then looking for the relationship between body weight, training seniority, sports performance and FC.

 

Authors: Thank you very much for your notes. The authors welcome your comments on the improvement of the study. First, it is worth mentioning that the study sample is small because a national wheelchair basketball team is analysed. The study consisted of all available players. In this line, this factor is indicated as a limitation of the study. In addition, in order to be able to draw relevant conclusions, fisher's statistical adjustment was carried out, as well as the sampling simulation. This makes it possible to simulate a large sample of participants using the available data as a source. Finally, we are grateful for the different possibilities of future studies that can be carried out on the relationship between body weight, training seniority, sports performance and FC. The authors will take this into account for future work which is being carried out with a larger sample.

 

In addition, the authors very often use words in a scientific publication: "they help, we contracted, we organized, we had" - please change the above-mentioned words to impersonal ones. 

 

Authors: thank you so much for your comments. The authors review the document and correct those expressions.

 

In addition, in the discussion of the submitted scientific publication, the authors do little to compare other publications and do not discuss the research results obtained.

 

Authors: thank you so much for your notes. This information has been added to the discussion.

 

References - please check the following references (there is lack of page(s)). 2, 4, 21, 23, 29, 34, 36, 40.

 

Authors: thank you so much for your comments. The references have been reviewed and added the information requested.

 

The reference 23 is a webpage, that is the reason why it does not have a page number.

 

The reference 36 is a webpage, that is the reason why it does not have a page number.

 

Submission Date

29 April 2024

Date of this review

20 May 2024 08:36:44

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please present tasks simulating the 5 × 5 game, a strategy used by coaches to work in real game situations, in other words the exercises used, which we do not find in the mentioned order, 27;28 and are not included either in data analysis! What are the exercises used?...the question remained unanswered!

What were the tasks in the simulated 5x5 game?

THE QUESTION DOESN'T REFER TO WHAT EXACTLY THE RESEARCHER FOLLOWED BUT WHAT EXACTLY THE SUBJECTS PERFORMED FOR THE RESEARCHER TO COLLECT THE NECESSARY DATA!

I ask the authors to respond promptly where they made the requested changes, for example: Row 109-111. It would be preferable to present some assigned tasks. Authors: thank you so much for your notes. This information has been added. Maybe by mistake, but I didn't find the information!

Line 112_The tasks are mentioned, 10 in number, but they are not found in the article. Row 120_all the exercises_What are these?

I recommend that in the Conclusions chapter the ideas in agreement with its title and with data obtained during the process should be recorded. For the moment, in the Conclusions we have general recommendations, but which are not based on the data of this research. (This data helps tailor the training program to meet specific competitive requirements and 263 allows for the development of a gradual and adaptable training program. This approach 264 ensures that athletes can perform at their peak during training, enhancing their skills and 265 improving performance during competitive events. 266)_ it's a writing mistake, it's a trainer not a tailor.

Author Response

I and my fellow authors would like to thank you for reviewing this manuscript and for the comments, which have enriched this manuscript. We have adequately addressed the comments. However, if you deem more changes necessary, we look forward to addressing any other concerns.

 

Review Report Form (Reviewer 2)

 

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report 
(x) I would like to sign my review report 

Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper 
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible 
( ) Extensive editing of English language required 
( ) Moderate editing of English language required 
( ) Minor editing of English language required 
( ) English language fine. No issues detected 

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Please present tasks simulating the 5 × 5 game, a strategy used by coaches to work in real game situations, in other words the exercises used, which we do not find in the mentioned order, 27;28 and are not included either in data analysis! What are the exercises used?...the question remained unanswered! 

What were the tasks in the simulated 5x5 game?

 

Authors: Thank you so much for your comments. This information has been added in the abstract and also in the method section, in which the development of a 5x5 simulated game task has been defined. We hope this definition is enough for you, if you consider it necessary to add some information, please don’t hesitate to tell us.

 

THE QUESTION DOESN'T REFER TO WHAT EXACTLY THE RESEARCHER FOLLOWED BUT WHAT EXACTLY THE SUBJECTS PERFORMED FOR THE RESEARCHER TO COLLECT THE NECESSARY DATA! 

 

I ask the authors to respond promptly where they made the requested changes, for example: Row 109-111. It would be preferable to present some assigned tasks. Authors: thank you so much for your notes. This information has been added. Maybe by mistake, but I didn't find the information!

 

Line 112_The tasks are mentioned, 10 in number, but they are not found in the article. Row 120_all the exercises_What are these? 

 

Authors: Thank you so much for your note. We think the information added in the article is enough to know which were the tasks developed and what the main aim of the task was.

 

 

I recommend that in the Conclusions chapter the ideas in agreement with its title and with data obtained during the process should be recorded. For the moment, in the Conclusions we have general recommendations, but which are not based on the data of this research. (This data helps tailor the training program to meet specific competitive requirements and 263 allows for the development of a gradual and adaptable training program. This approach 264 ensures that athletes can perform at their peak during training, enhancing their skills and 265 improving performance during competitive events. 266)_ it's a writing mistake, it's a trainer not a tailor.

 

Authors: Thank you so much for your comments. This mistake has been corrected. Also, the conclusions have been modified and increased their quality and relation with the results obtained.

 

Submission Date

29 April 2024

Date of this review

29 May 2024 10:59:11

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Having received the corrections to the submitted scientific article, I am not satisfied with the corrected report received. The paper has potential, but the results section of the research should be significantly improved. I mentioned the results section in the first review - given the small number of participants in the study - more comparisons should be made looking for a correlation or relationship between body weight, training length etc.   

Author Response

I and my fellow authors would like to thank you for reviewing this manuscript and for the comments, which have enriched this manuscript. We have adequately addressed the comments. However, if you deem more changes necessary, we look forward to addressing any other concerns.

 

Review Report Form (Reviewer 3)

 

Open Review

 

(x) I would not like to sign my review report 
( ) I would like to sign my review report 

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper 
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible 
( ) Extensive editing of English language required 
( ) Moderate editing of English language required 
( ) Minor editing of English language required 
(x) English language fine. No issues detected 

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Having received the corrections to the submitted scientific article, I am not satisfied with the corrected report received. The paper has potential, but the results section of the research should be significantly improved. I mentioned the results section in the first review - given the small number of participants in the study - more comparisons should be made looking for a correlation or relationship between body weight, training length etc.

 

Authors: Thank you so much for your comments. We appreciate your reports. An analysis considering the weight, height and experience of the player has been carried out in order to identify correlations between the EL and IL variables.

 

Submission Date

29 April 2024

Date of this review

27 May 2024 09:10:24

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

With reference to the submitted scientific article, the authors made a number of corrections that definitely increased the scientific value of the manuscript. In the results section, the authors made many improvements by adding a relationship between the dependent variables such as the weight, the heightay and the training experience. 

Furthermore, the authors responded to the comments sent in an earlier review, so I positively evaluate the submitted scientific article and have no complaints.