All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Authors have improved the paper following point by point the reviewers comments and suggestions.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The paper is interesting, well-structured, and well-written. To improve it some minor suggestions should be followed.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
No comment
No comment
No comment
General comment
Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. Congratulations, the paper is well written, the contents are presented in detail, as well as the results are clearly presented, and the tables are well done. It could provide relevant practical information.
The specific hypothesis is well formulated, and the rationale is consistent with current literature.
I have a few minor comments that can be addressed to improve the paper.
- Considering the first limitation of the study (i.e., that the investigations were conducted on a team), Please, I suggest adding the final wording in the title: “preliminary study”, “case study” or “team case study”.
- The materials and methods are very detailed and complete. I would only suggest, if it is possible, adding some more information regarding the members of the team considered.
- Your first aim indicates the need to identify "situational-related variables". I suggest improving the description of how the variables were identified in lines 233-236, to provide more clarity and completeness to the paper.
- I suggest increasing the graphic quality of Figure 1, so that it looks more attractive.
Minor points:
Line 66: Please, I recommend adding the “,” after “…in addition…”
line 101: the words Paralympic Games, should contain a capital letter "G" in "games”.
line 328: By "…relevant evel…" you meant “…relevant level…"?
-Finally, the English language could be improved to ensure better understanding and clearer form:
Line 79: Please I suggest "player also has…" rather than "player also have…"
Line 80: Please I suggest " Concerning the classification...." rather than "With reference to the classification..."
Line 90: Please, I suggest replacing "... integration the coaches’..." with "... integration of coaches’..."
Line 186: Please, I suggest replacing the verb "...interpretated..." with "...interpreted”.
Line 242: Please, I suggest replacing "...in relation with the number of shots..." with " ...in relation to the number of shots..."
Line 290-291: Please, I suggest substituting the phrase “This gives offensive players the opportunity to attempt their preferred shots early in a possession and, potentially....” to “This allows offensive players to attempt their preferred shots early in the possession and, potentially....”.
Line 302: Please, I suggest replacing "WB players reaches..." to "WB players reach..."
In the abstract, it is unclear where the conclusion begins.
In Line 156, the phrase "2 1/2 hours" is commonly used in casual or informal writing. I suggest using "2 hours and 30 minutes" or "150 minutes" for a more precise representation.
I am uncertain if the resolution has been enhanced prior to publication, but in Figure 1, the distinction between Zone 2 and Zone 3 is not clear.
no comment
This paper is highly interesting and well-structured. A major strength of this manuscript is its investigation of the field-goal effectiveness of non-elite high-point WB players throughout a competitive season, making it the first study of its kind. Additionally, the authors provide comprehensive support for their article through a comprehensive literature analysis.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.