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.
Dear Authors
We are pleased to inform you that your revised manuscript has undergone expert review and has been deemed to meet the standards required for publication in PeerJ. The reviewers have acknowledged the substantial improvements made during the revision process, and we commend your diligence and responsiveness to feedback.
Your submission is now formally accepted for publication. This endorsement reflects the quality and relevance of your research, as well as your valuable contribution to the scientific community.
On behalf of the editorial team, I would like to express our sincere appreciation for your efforts and commitment to advancing knowledge in your field. We look forward to receiving future submissions of your research and review articles.
Best Regards
Yung-Sheng Chen, Ph.D.
Academic Editor
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The manuscript is written in clear, professional, and unambiguous English. The article follows the standard scientific structure with well-developed sections (introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions). The literature review is comprehensive and up to date, including relevant references from 2019–2024, which places the study in the current research context. Figures and tables are appropriate and of good quality, and the raw data are shared in line with PeerJ’s policy. The article is self-contained and fully addresses the stated hypotheses.
The study presents original primary research that falls within the journal’s scope. The research question is clearly defined, relevant, and meaningful, addressing an important knowledge gap: the influence of diurnal variations on cognitive coordination in team sports. The investigation has been conducted rigorously, with high methodological and ethical standards (full ethical approval obtained). The methods are described in sufficient detail to allow replication, including careful control of confounding variables and randomization of temporal conditions.
The data provided are robust, well-controlled, and statistically sound. The mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative analyses, ensures methodological triangulation and enhances the validity of findings. Conclusions are well stated, directly linked to the research question, and limited to the supporting results. The authors transparently discuss the limitations (small sample size, lack of objective sleep monitoring) while highlighting the exploratory and hypothesis-generating nature of the study.
This article makes a valuable contribution to the literature on sports psychology, chronobiology, and team cognition. The findings also have practical applications, helping coaches optimize training schedules and better prepare athletes for competitions held at different times of day.
Thank You very much for a possibility of sending review of the following scientific paper. I would like to say that I am satisfied with the responses to the suggestions and comments sent in the review of the scientific article. I would like to thank the authors of the publication for analysing all comments in detail and treating them with due attention. Based on the comments submitted, numerous additions were made to the text, including expanding the introduction with current data on the role of cognitive and psychomotor abilities in handball, clarifying the methodological justifications, and updating and expanding the literature base with the latest scientific research related to the research problem of the scientific work.
As for specific comments, it is worth adding that the authors of the publication added extensive passages describing cognitive and psychomotor functions, supporting them with the latest publications (Blecharz, Scharfen, Trecroci, Araújo, Starkes, Tenenbaum). Furthermore, in response to comments on some of the citations, the authors explained that the cited works are methodologically fundamental and still relevant in contemporary research. The authors also added a number of citations from 2020–2024 (Schmidt, Facer-Childs, Munilari, Vitale, Vogel, Filho, Trecroci, Blecharz). A detailed description of the level of competition (Tunisian 1st division, 6 training sessions/week, youth representatives) was also added. The last comment concerned the small size of the study group. The authors explained in detail that they used a qualitative case study method, which requires a small number of participants.
Therefore, I am convinced that thanks to these amendments, the scientific article has significantly gained in terms of its substantive and scientific quality.
I have sent all comments on the submitted comments above.
I have sent all comments on the submitted comments above.
The authors have addressed the previous comment about the overly complex sentence structure. The revised manuscript is much clearer, with more concise wording and a moderate reduction in paragraph length. The writing style now meets the journal's academic standards, and the overall readability has improved markedly.
The experimental design is generally well thought out, technically sound, and appropriate to the research objectives.
The conclusions are clearly stated, follow logically from the results and remain within the framework of the presented evidence, demonstrating high validity and compliance with the study objectives.
The authors have qualitatively revised the article: they have taken into account previous comments, increased the level of argumentation, and improved the style. Minor limitations (small sample size) do not reduce the scientific weight of the work. The manuscript is coherent, mature, and ready for publication.
I still have concerns about the revisions.
I still have concerns about the revisions.
I still have concerns about the revisions.
Dear Authors
Your revision has been reviewed by experts in the field. Comprehensive comments on the submission have been addressed. I would encourage you to carefully address the issues brought by the reviewers regarding the relatively small sample size and methodological reproducibility. We invite you to submit a revised manuscript version addressing the reviewers’ comments.
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
Best regards
Yung-Sheng Chen, Ph.D.
Academic Editor
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The article is written in clear, professional, and unambiguous English. Terminology is appropriate to the subject matter and consistently used. The introduction provides a sufficient review of the literature and background, situating the study within current knowledge and identifying a gap concerning circadian influences on team-based cognitive coordination.
The structure of the article meets journal standards, with a logical flow from abstract to conclusion. Figures and tables are well-prepared and relevant, and enhance understanding of the content. Raw data and methodological details are sufficiently referenced and presented to ensure transparency.
The study is self-contained and provides results directly related to the stated hypotheses. It successfully links theoretical frameworks (e.g., the Recognition-Primed Decision Model) to observed behaviors in elite handball players.
The study is an original and relevant contribution to the literature, falling well within the scope of the journal. The research question is clearly formulated and addresses a novel angle – the influence of time of day on cognitive coordination in team sports—where empirical evidence is still scarce.
The design combines qualitative and quantitative elements in a mixed-methods approach. This is appropriate given the complexity of the research problem. Ethical approval was obtained, and the description of participant recruitment, chronotype classification, and data collection was thorough.
The methods are detailed and replicable, especially regarding the coding procedure and use of self-confrontation interviews, which are a strength of this paper.
The statistical analysis is sound and appropriately chosen (chi-square test) for the categorical nature of the data. The findings are robust and adequately controlled, especially considering the use of triangulation and multiple analysts in the qualitative phases.
The conclusions are clearly stated and remain within the scope of the presented results. The authors avoid overgeneralization, and they appropriately relate their findings back to both the theoretical framework and practical implications for training.
Suggested improvement: While the authors mention mood and fatigue, some direct psychometric or physiological measures (e.g., POMS, HRV) would strengthen the interpretation of circadian influence. This should be addressed as a limitation or direction for future studies.
This is an insightful and methodologically rigorous study that addresses a timely and underexplored topic. The findings have direct practical relevance for coaches and sports scientists in terms of scheduling training to optimize cognitive coordination in elite team athletes. The use of the Recognition-Primed Decision Model in sport-specific settings is a valuable contribution to applied sport psychology and cognitive science.
Minor editorial clarifications would further improve readability.
It was with due diligence and curiosity that I undertook to review a research topic on the Influence of diurnal variations on cognitive coordination and misunderstanding in elite male handball players. The research problem of the submitted paper is very interesting and the aim of the research was to investigate the influence of different times of day on cognitive misunderstandings and inconsistencies during cognitive exchanges among elite male handball players.
Introduction. Having reviewed the introduction, I send some suggestions and comments on the research problem under investigation. It seems reasonable for the authors to add to the introduction information about the influence of cognitive, psychomotor abilities on sports performance in team sports games, and especially in handball. In addition, it would be worthwhile to present more extensively what cognitive abilities are and their importance in today's professional handball. Please also enlarge the citation in this section (add citation about psychomotor abilities, cognitive abilities, reaction and movement time as also decision making).
Citations. Please explain why did You add citations from Bastuji H. (1985), Hill (1991), Horne (1976), Salmon (2017) – add pages., Strauss (1998) – add pages, Theureau (1992, 2006) – add pages.
Material and methods. Please if possible change the citations of Ostberg 1976 or Jouvet 1985 on nowadays citations (if it is possible). Please also add information on the level of competition in which players are competing. The problem is the number of research groups – only 6 male players (it is possible to enlarge the group).
Data analysis and statistical analyses. Data analysis and statistical analyses were done to a high standard. It can be seen that the authors of the scientific article knew how to approach the statistical analysis where they used several tests for statistical evaluation.
Results. I have no comments on the results of the study which are presented in the form of graphs and tables. They are clear and show the detailed results of the research. However, the problem with the research results is that the authors only conducted a study on 6 handball players (it is not even one team). For a handball match to take place “normally” there must be 7 players on the field. The authors did not even analyze the individual players in the positions which would also have been interesting.
Discussion. No comments on the discussion. Please add more citations on the research problem from the last 5-6 years.
Meets the criteria, with minor remarks.
In several instances, the sentence structure is overly complex, which may hinder clarity and readability. Simplifying these formulations would enhance overall comprehension.
-
-
1. General Comment
This manuscript addresses the potential influence of diurnal (time-of-day) variation on cognitive coordination and misunderstanding among elite male handball players, using a mixed-methods approach. The topic is, in principle, of interest to the fields of chronobiology, sports psychology, and team cognition. However, the study, as currently designed and reported, suffers from a number of critical methodological, analytical, and reporting deficiencies that, in my view, preclude its publication in a high-impact, international journal. My detailed comments are as follows.
2. Major Concerns
2.1. Sample Size, Representativeness, and Statistical Power
• The study is based on a sample of only six elite male handball players, all of whom are classified as “moderately evening” chronotypes. This extremely limited sample size is a fundamental flaw. It is not possible to draw any meaningful statistical or practical inferences from such a small and homogenous group. The lack of diversity in chronotype further restricts the generalisability of the findings.
• The exclusion of the goalkeeper, a key member of any handball team, further undermines the ecological validity of the study. The authors’ rationale for this exclusion is not provided.
• No power analysis is presented. With such a small sample, the risk of both Type I and Type II errors is unacceptably high. The use of chi-square tests with such small cell counts is statistically inappropriate, as the assumptions underlying these tests (minimum expected cell frequency) are clearly violated.
• The authors do not discuss the implications of their sample size for the reliability or stability of their findings, nor do they acknowledge the severe limitations this imposes on the interpretation of their results.
2.2. Experimental Design and Control of Confounding Variables
• The study employs “simulated matches” at three time points (10:00, 14:00, 18:00), but provides insufficient detail regarding the nature of these simulations. There is no information on the competitive context, the presence or absence of opposition, the standardization of match conditions, or the motivational environment. Without such detail, it is impossible to assess the ecological validity of the findings.
• The authors state that participants were asked to maintain their usual sleep habits and avoid intensive activity the day before each session, but provide no objective verification (e.g., actigraphy, sleep diaries, or compliance checks). Given the well-established impact of sleep and circadian misalignment on cognitive and physical performance, this is a significant omission.
• Other potential confounders—such as nutritional status, hydration, academic or social stress, caffeine or stimulant use, and prior training load—are not reported or controlled. These factors are particularly relevant in adolescent athletes, whose daily routines may be highly variable.
• The study does not report whether the order of match times was randomized or counterbalanced, raising the possibility of order effects or learning/fatigue confounds.
2.3. Mixed-Methods Approach: Integration and Transparency
• The study claims to use a mixed-methods approach, combining video analysis and post-match self-confrontation interviews. However, the integration of qualitative and quantitative data is superficial. There is no evidence of a coherent mixed-methods framework, nor is there any attempt to triangulate findings or provide joint displays.
• The process of qualitative coding is inadequately described. The authors refer to the Recognition-Primed Decision (RPD) model and cite De Keukelaere et al. (2013), but do not provide a codebook, examples of coded data, or a description of coder training. Inter-coder reliability is not reported (e.g., Cohen’s kappa), which is a basic requirement for qualitative research credibility.
• The decision to collapse seven distinct forms of cognitive sharing into two “negative” categories (contradictory and misunderstanding) is not justified or validated. This risks oversimplification and loss of nuance in the data.
Operationalization and Construct Validity
• The operational definitions of “contradictory” and “misunderstanding” forms are not sufficiently clear. It is not evident whether these categories are mutually exclusive, or how ambiguous cases were handled.
• The reliance on self-confrontation interviews raises concerns about retrospective bias and the validity of players’ accounts of their own cognitive processes. The authors do not discuss the limitations of this method or provide evidence of its validity in this context.
• The distinction between “expectations” as anticipatory cognition versus post-hoc rationalization is not addressed, which undermines the construct validity of the findings.
2.5. Reporting of Results and Data Transparency
• Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, proportions) are not consistently reported. Effect sizes and confidence intervals are absent. The exclusive reliance on p-values is outdated and insufficient.
• The raw data are said to be available “upon request”, but no practical mechanism for access is provided. In the context of open science, this is inadequate.
2.6. Literature Review and Theoretical Framing
• The introduction provides a basic overview of circadian rhythms and team cognition but omits key recent literature on chronopsychology, team synchrony, and the neurobiology of collective performance.
• The theoretical mechanism linking diurnal variation to team-level cognitive alignment is not clearly articulated. The discussion is largely descriptive and does not engage with competing explanations or alternative models.
2.7. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools
• The authors disclose the use of ChatGPT-4.0 for “enhancing the academic writing”. The extent of this involvement is not specified. According to COPE (2023) guidelines, the use of generative AI in manuscript preparation must be fully transparent, and authors remain responsible for the integrity and originality of their work. More importantly, the use of AI cannot compensate for fundamental methodological weaknesses.
3. Minor Issues
• Numerous typographical and formatting errors are present, including unexplained terms, encoding artifacts in headings, and inconsistent use of English spelling.
• The abstract is overly long and contains grammatical errors.
• Several references are cited inappropriately or out of context.
• The ethical approval process is described, but the need for parental consent in minors is not addressed.
4. Recommendation: Reject
Rationale:
The manuscript is fundamentally limited by its extremely small and homogenous sample, lack of experimental control, inadequate reporting, and insufficient integration of qualitative and quantitative data. The statistical analyses are inappropriate for the sample size, and the reporting of results is incomplete. The theoretical framing is underdeveloped, and the use of AI tools, while disclosed, does not address the core methodological flaws. In its current form, the study does not meet the standards of rigor, transparency, or generalisability required for publication in a high-impact journal.
I strongly encourage the authors, should they wish to pursue this line of inquiry, to:
• Substantially increase the sample size and diversity (including different chronotypes and both sexes).
• Employ a fully randomized and counterbalanced experimental design, with objective monitoring of sleep and activity.
• Provide a detailed and transparent account of qualitative coding, including inter-coder reliability.
• Integrate qualitative and quantitative findings within a coherent mixed-methods framework.
• Ensure complete and transparent reporting of all data, figures, and tables.
• Engage more deeply with the relevant literature and theoretical models.
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.