Enhancing Acceleration Capabilities in Professional Women’s Football Players: A Comparative Analysis of Game-Based Versus Resisted Sprint Trainings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The idea of ​​this study is interesting, my recommendations are the following:

Abstract- Line 18 I recommend to mention the average age and standard deviation of the subjects.

Line 69 - I recommend clarifying the number of subjects, in the abstract mention 28 and in the Subjects section only 26.

Subjects - I recommend mentioning the exclusion criteria of subjects from the study. I recommend to calculate and mention the power of the sample - GPower.

The Design section - I recommend renaming it Study design and Procedures.

Sprint performance testing - according to the statements, the evaluation was carried out on 30 meters in four moments, in the abstract you mentioned 3 tests, I recommend clarifications.

Table 2 recommends that when mentioning the values ​​of the statistical index p, the sign < should be used for all values, not just for .001.

I recommend that under table 2, it should be mentioned descriptively what the acronyms/statistical symbols represent.

I recommend that at the end of the Discussion section or in a new subsection, the future research directions and the practical implications of the study should be presented.

As a recommendation, please correct the location of the Conclusions section in the text. I recommend expanding the Conclusions section in more detail.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the feedback received, which has contributed to improving the manuscript. Please find attached the document with point-by-point responses to the suggestions

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.    In part 1, can you give some specific examples about the importance of acceleration in football? Such as analyzing the importance of speeding ability in FIFA Women's World Cup or UEFA Women's Champions League. The readers may be curious about how acceleration raises athletes’ performance.
2.    From line 45 to 48, the necessity of target training is mentioned, while only one sentence describes different sprinting training. Will you discuss which kind of training increases the performance in what kind of sports?
3.    In the part of sprint training, the overload of intensity and volume, can you explain further the reasons for study design? Since when the intensity rises, the body position can be changed (according to figure 1) but different from the running position of football players, then how the load was being added? Or how can the kind of training fit for football training?
4.    The test of sprint performance had done in twice, and calculated mean values, why three times in the testing was not chosen?
5.    Can you explain why four timepoints (pre-season, post-resisted intervention, post-control period, and post-integrated intervention) were chosen? And is there any possible that after resisted intervention, and before control period, the elution period was long enough for some of subjects?
6.    Can you give some specific explanation on how sprint training improves the level of football players, by giving some biomedical indicators.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is comprehensive, while the format need to be rechecked.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the feedback received, which has contributed to improving the manuscript. Please find attached the document with point-by-point responses to the suggestions

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overview

This study is interesting and well-written. There are some minor changes that the authors need to make to improve the manuscript and make it publishable in Applied Science.

 

Specific comments

Lines 9-12: Remove these sentences. I recommend writing this in the “Conclusions” where the authors will insert these sentences as practical implications.

 

Introduction

Line 64: When describing the aim, the past tense is used. E.g., “This study aimed to assess …”

 

Materials and Methods

In Subjects: Please justify the sample size recruited through an a priori statistical power analysis.

 

Discussion

The limitations were discussed.

 

Conclusions

Add what your study brings that is new in sports science and why it differs from previous studies, and include the practical implications.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comment.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the feedback received, which has contributed to improving the manuscript. Please find attached the document with point-by-point responses to the suggestions

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research represents a valuable attempt to enhance athlete performance in a specific sport. From problem definition through solution implementation to final outcome presentation, the process is logically structured and coherent. Despite minor technical details needing additional elaboration, this does not detract from its standing as a high-quality scientific paper. Based on the provided document, here is an evaluation of the article across various aspects:

1 The article explores the effectiveness of game-based and resisted sprint training in enhancing acceleration capabilities for professional women's football players. Although these methods are not entirely new, applying them to women's football and evaluating their effects during actual competitions provides fresh insights into this field.

2 The introduction thoroughly discusses the increasing demand for high-speed actions in women's football and highlights that acceleration capabilities have become a critical criterion for player selection and promotion. Additionally, it mentions different training methods and their impact on acceleration, providing readers with sufficient background information.

3 The authors clearly explain the experimental procedures, participant selection criteria, and specific steps for data collection. A brief introduction to statistical analysis methods is provided; however, further clarification on the application of LMMs (linear mixed models) and handling of missing values could enhance transparency.

4 The results section presents trend graphs showing changes over time and key numerical variations in tabular form. These visual aids help in understanding the differences between groups and their significance levels. However, more detailed interpretation, particularly regarding maximum deceleration data, would be beneficial.

5 Overall, the language used in the paper is fluent and accurate. Some sentences, however, are rather complex, which might pose some reading difficulty for non-native speakers. It is suggested to simplify sentence structures where possible and maintain consistency.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the feedback received, which has contributed to improving the manuscript. Please find attached the document with point-by-point responses to the suggestions

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

no comments

Author Response

We greatly value your detailed suggestions, which have helped strengthen the quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for the author’s response. Could you please provide additional experimental images and videos to enhance our understanding of the study? Additionally, the reported height of the 26 subjects (1.69m ± 0.07m) suggests a very similar body composition across participants. I would appreciate it if the author could provide supporting evidence to confirm this.

There are a few formatting errors that need correction:

• Line 125: The "200m²" should be written with "²" as a superscript.
• Line 237: The "r²" should be formatted as a superscript.
• Similarly, on line 156.
• Line 247: Please correct the formatting of "p<0.001."

I also noticed some inconsistencies in the figure: there are two, three, and four points represented on different charts. Could the author clarify the rationale behind this?

Finally, the statement regarding "tailored sprint training in athletic programs" is unclear. Could the author elaborate on what is meant by this? Overall, the experimental design appears overly simplistic, and the results seem rather obvious. It leaves me wondering how a paper of this nature could be accepted for publication in an SCI journal, as it does not seem to offer any groundbreaking insights.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

ok

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your time and dedication in reviewing our manuscript, as your comments have significantly improved the quality of our work.

 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for your response. Could you please send the att-ach-  - ment you mentioned? I couldn’t find any supporting information regarding the height data (1.69m ± 0.07m). Could you also share images of the participants standing together? Without these, it's difficult to understand how the team could have such closely aligned heights. I play soccer as well, so this is of particular interest to me. Additionally, could you provide further explanation as to why an experiment in which a participant dropped out midway was still included in the analysis? Typically, data from such cases would not be reused in analysis. Thank you.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

ok

Author Response

We really appreciate reviewer's feedback. Please see the attached files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your research is impressive, and I am now fully convinced by your findings. I strongly support the publication of your paper. However, I noticed that the data analysis section could benefit from additional references, and I recommend citing doi: 10.3390/cells8101276. I also owe you an apology for my previous, perhaps hasty, review comments. I had not anticipated that such subtle differences in athletes' physical fitness could be significant, and in our field, visual evidence is often critical. I sincerely apologize and ask for your understanding. Congratulations once again, and I strongly endorse the publication of your paper!

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable feedback, which we believe has significantly improved the quality of our work. We are pleased that an expert in the field recognizes the importance of our findings as a meaningful contribution to the body of knowledge.

Regarding the suggested reference, we would like to emphasize our willingness to enhance the manuscript by incorporating relevant and valuable citations. However, we are uncertain whether the proposed reference is accurate or if there might have been an oversight, as the methodology described in the suggested article pertains to the application of text mining models for analyzing gene inhibition.

Should the reference indeed be correct, we would be open to including it and kindly ask the reviewer to specify which aspects of the article should be highlighted in relation to our methodology. Nevertheless, given the apparent methodological disparity, we respectfully request a confirmation or clarification of the reference provided.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful consideration and input

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf