Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Nov 22;17(11):e0276668. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276668

The relative age effect in top 100 elite female tennis players in 2007–2016

Jiří Zháněl 1, Tomáš Válek 1, Michal Bozděch 1, Adrián Agricola 2,*
Editor: Javier Abián-Vicén3
PMCID: PMC9681101  PMID: 36413556

Abstract

The Relative Age Effect (RAE) has been the subject of many studies, but few have focused on professional athletes in individual sports. The aim of this study was to verify the existence of the RAE among elite senior female tennis players (top 100 players) in the WTA Rankings (n = 1000) in the years 2007–2016. The analysis was performed among top 100, resp. top 10 female tennis players, among players in 4 age subgroups and among left-handed (LH) and right-handed (RH) players. The existence of the RAE was assessed with the use of chi-square test (goodness of fit). More than half of top 100 players were born in first semester: both in individual years (53.0–63.0%) and in the whole observed period (58.4%). Significant RAE (ES medium) was observed in top 100 female players only in 2012 and 2016; significant RAE (ES small) was detected in the period of 2007–2016. Among the top 10 players, significant RAE (ES medium) was demonstrated during the whole period. No significant RAE (ES medium) was detected in the 17–18y subgroups, significant in 19–24y and 25–30y (ES small) as well as in 31–36y (ES medium). Although significant RAE was observed in the subgroups of LH and RH female players, ES was large only in the LH. The results contribute to the expansion of the knowledge about the reduction of the RAE existence in adulthood among coaches, athletes and tennis officials.

Introduction

In recent years, the issue of the influence of birthdate on athletic performance is largely referred to as the Relative Age Effect (RAE); there are also equivalents like: Birth date [1, 2]. Birth quarter [3], Age effect [4], Quarter of birth [5] or Month of birth [6] in the scientific literature. The term RAE expresses the deviation of the distribution of birthdates of selected athletes from normal distribution in population [7]. The first studies were published in the field of education [8]; the first RAE researches in sports focused for instance on volleyball [9], ice hockey [9, 10], baseball [11], soccer [12], and tennis [1]. Cobley, Baker, Wattie and McKenna [13] stated in an extensive meta-analytical review that most works on the RAE had been published in soccer then in ice hockey and tennis. It was already Barnsley et al. [10] who showed in one of the first studies an almost linear decrease in number of players born from Q1 to Q4 quartiles in Canadian senior and junior ice hockey players. A significant RAE was observed also in NHL [14] and in soccer [15].

During the last decade, a large number of studies were published dealing with the influence of the RAE in professional athletes, for instance in basketball [16, 17], rugby [17], water polo [17], soccer [18, 19], handball [20], ice hockey [21], volleyball [22], judo [23], track and field [24]. In a male context, RAE is well documented. However, RAE may be influenced by sex differences: the main reason the authors state is that during the period when the selection pressure is at its strongest in most sports, the puberty period of girls is often over and the differences caused by different stages of ontogenetic development are not so distinct. Another reason is possibly the fact that girls are not so much interested in physically demanding sports (where the RAE influence appears most) as boys are [25, 26].

In the probably first study devoted to junior tennis, Dudink [1] drew attention to the issue of influence of “dates of birth”, noticing “… strikingly skewed distribution of the dates of birth of 12- to 16-year-old tennis players in the top rankings of the Dutch youth league, half of a sample of 60 tennis players were born in the first 3 months of the year” (p.592). The influence of birthdate was proven by Giacomini [27] among junior male tennis players (U14 and U16) and by Moreira, Lopes, Faria and Albuquerque [28] among players born 1995–2000, resp. O’Donoghue [29] among junior female players (age 15–18). Only a small RAE was found by Gerdin, Hedberg and Hageskog [30] among Swedish junior male and female tennis players born in 1998–2001. Ulbricht, Fernandez-Fernandez, Mendez-Villanueva and Ferrauti [31] showed that there is a stronger RAE effect with increasing performance level and age category; Pacharoni, Aoki, Costa, Moreira and Massa [32] stated a stronger existence of the RAE in junior male tennis players (U12–U18) than in senior male professional players. Söğüt et al. [33] were dealing with the effects of age and maturity on anthropometric and various fitness characteristics in young female tennis players (U12, U14) and proved a significant difference in favour of girls born the first semester of the year especially in anthropometric measurements and in hand grip compared to those born in the second half of the year.

In the categories of elite senior male and female players, the existence of the RAE in Grand Slam (GS) tournaments was showed by Edgar and O’Donoghue [2] (GS tournaments in 2002–2003) as well as O’Donoghue [34] in senior female players (GS tournaments in 2008–09). Ribeiro et al. [35] also found a larger number of players born in the first semester (S1) than in the second semester (S2) in senior male and female tennis players. Agricola, Bozděch, Zvonař and Zháněl [26] did not prove any RAE existence among top 100 senior female tennis players in the Women’s Tennis Association Singles Rankings (WTA Rankings) during 2014–18; medium RAE was found only in 2016 and 2017. After dividing the top 100 according to singles rankings into 4 intervals, the authors found RAE existence in the 76–100 positions, but they observed no RAE in other three intervals (positions 1–25, 26–50, and 51–75). In a study of top 300 ranked professional tennis players from 2010 to 2018 (193 females and 180 males) at different ranking levels, Li, Weissensteiner, Pion and De Bosscher [36] were founding out at what age the athletes had started playing tennis and when they had reached the milestones of their career ratings. It was found that 75% of the top 300 players started playing tennis between the age of 3 to 7 years and also that professional rankings between 14 and 18 years were not reliable in predicting a player’s future ranking. O’Donoghue [37] dealt with the relationship between the RAE and the strategy of game during US Open (2011–2013) and Australian Open (2012–2014) and proved that the players born in the first 6 months (S1) play more often on the net, which he considers to be consequence of the game strategy used in junior categories, when the players benefited from the earlier birthdate (for instance being taller than relatively younger opponents). In their study dealing with the issue of handedness of male professional tennis players (ATP top 500) in the context of the RAE, Loffing, Schorer and Cobley [38] found a significant existence of the RAE among right-handed (RH) players (86.6% were born in S1), while no RAE was observed among the left-handed players (LH). In summary, it can be stated that only few studies have been found during our literary research which would analyse the RAE in the context of ATP or WTA Rankings [26, 28, 29].

The results of the assessment of the RAE existence in individual sports are (especially in professional athletes) often diverse; however, its higher incidence is reported in junior categories. This fact supports the idea that individual biological maturation should be considered for the selection of adolescent athletes in context of talent identification and development, to prevent drop-out of relatively younger players. Individual differences in growth and maturation can give athletes an immediate performance advantage and influence the perception of coaches as to their current abilities and future potential [3, 5, 18, 21, 39, 40].

The above given literature search indicates that although the RAE issue is a frequently discussed topic in team sports (namely in basketball, ice hockey, soccer), the number of studies in individual sports is significantly lower (combat sports, gymnastics, swimming, table tennis, tennis). Therefore, the aim of this study was to verify the existence of the RAE in elite senior female players who held position among top 100 players in the WTA Rankings in 2007–2016 (n = 1000). The analysis was performed on the following groups: 1) top 100 female tennis players in the individual years; 2) top 100 and top 10 female tennis players during the whole period; 3) players divided by age subgroups (17–18y, 19–24y, 25–30y, 31–36y); 4) players divided by handedness (LH or RH players).

Methods

Procedures

The study focused on the influence of the RAE in elite female tennis players in 2007–2016. In this period, birthdates of top 100 (n = 1000) and top 10 (n = 100) female players of WTA Singles Rankings were analysed at the end of each year. Then the participants (age range = 17–36y) were divided into four age subgroups: junior female players SG1 (17–18y, n = 38) and senior female players SG2 (19–24y, n = 486); SG3 (25–30y, n = 405); SG4 (31–36y, n = 65). The subgroup of players aged 37–44 years was not statistically processed due to the small size of the sample (n = 6). The handedness of all female players was determined: left-handed (LH, n = 78) and right-handed (RH, n = 922) players. Research data (rankings and months of birth) were retrieved from the official WTA website https://www.wtatennis.com/rankings/singles. The division of players into specific quarters of the year was based on the date of their birth as follows: Q1 (January through March), Q2 (April through June), Q3 (July through September), and Q4 (October through December).

Statistical analysis

To assess the match of theoretical (expected) frequency distribution and empirical (observed) frequency distribution, we used chi-square (χ2) goodness of fit test. The theoretical (expected) frequency distribution was Q1 = 90.25/365.25, Q2 = 91/365.25, Q3 = 92/365.25, Q4 = 92/365.25 [2], which is in relative values: Q1 = 24.71%, Q2 = 24.91%, Q3 = 25.19%, Q4 = 25.19%. The evaluation of ES index w was interpreted as small (w = 0.10), medium (w = 0.30) or large (w = 0.50) based on Cohen [41]. Calculations were performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics software (version 25.0, SPSS INC., Chicago, IL USA) and Microsoft Excel. The level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.

Results

In accordance with the research goals, the results part of this study gradually addresses the issue of the RAE existence in top 100 and top 10 female tennis players in individual years and in the whole period of 2007–2016 as well as in terms of age and handedness.

The RAE in top 100 and top 10 female tennis players in the whole period of 2007–2016

A graphical representation of the results of the analysis of the RAE existence in top 100 and top 10 female tennis players (WTA Rankings) in the period of 2007–2016 for the top 100 is presented in Fig 1. It is clear that both top 100 and top 10 female players show a tendency for the relative frequencies to decrease from Q1 to Q4 (with the exception of Q3 in top 10). 58.4% female tennis players of top 100 were born in the first semesters (S1) of 2007–2016, while 41.6% players (diff = 16.8%) in the second ones (S2).

Fig 1. Comparison of the relative age effect distributions in top 100 and top 10 female tennis players (WTA Rankings, 2007–2016), birthdate distribution is presented by quartiles (Q1-Q4).

Fig 1

The influence of the RAE in top 100 female players in the individual years of 2007–2016

Table 1 presents an overview of the distribution of the frequencies of birthdates of the top 100 female tennis players (WTA rankings) in individual years and in the whole research period of 2007–2016, including the statistical assessment of the results obtained (χ2 test, level of statistical significance p, effect size index w). The table shows that while in the individual years significant RAE was observed only in the years 2012 and 2016 (ES medium), in the whole research period of 2007–2016, significant RAE was found, but ES is only small. In the individual years, always more than a half of the players (53–63%) were born in the first semester (S1), the most in 2016 (63%) and 2012 (60%); in the whole period of 2007–2016, 58.4% female players were born in S1.

Table 1. Season of birth distribution of top 100 female tennis players in individual years.

Years Birth quarter n χ2 p w
Q1 (%) Q2 (%) Q3 (%) Q4 (%)
2007 31 28 25 16 100 5.3 0.15 0.23
2008 30 28 28 14 100 6.8 0.08 0.26
2009 26 27 29 18 100 2.9 0.41 0.17
2010 28 29 26 17 100 3.8 0.28 0.19
2011 31 27 25 17 100 4.4 0.22 0.21
2012 37 23 23 17 100 9.1 0.03 0.30
2013 35 24 24 17 100 7.0 0.07 0.27
2014 33 26 22 19 100 4.8 0.19 0.22
2015 34 24 25 17 100 6.2 0.10 0.25
2016 36 27 20 17 100 9.1 0.03 0.30
All 32.1 26.3 24.7 16.9 1000 50.3 0.00 0.22

Qi = quartile, n = statistical file size, χ2 = chi-square test (goodness of fit), p = level of statistical significance, w = ES index; p ≤ 0.05 and w = difference medium and large effect size are in bold.

Table 2 presents the frequency distribution of the birthdates of top 100 and top 10 female players in individual quartiles (Qi) in the whole period of 2007–2016. The hypothesis of the existence of the RAE among the top 100 and top 10 can be rejected (p ≤ 0.05); however, the results of power analysis showed only a small ES (w = 0.22) among the top 100 players and a medium ES (w = 0.37) among the top 10 players. It can be deduced from this that with the increasing performance of female tennis players, the RAE has a slightly increasing tendency.

Table 2. Comparison of the RAE in top 100 and top 10 female players (2007–2016).

Group Birth quarter n χ2 p w
Q1 (%) Q2 (%) Q3 (%) Q4 (%)
top 100 32.1 26.3 24.7 16.9 1000 50.3 0.00 0.22
top 10 35.0 27.0 28.0 10.0 100 13.9 0.00 0.37

Qi = quartile, n = statistical file size, χ2 = chi-square test (goodness of fit), p = level of statistical significance, w = ES index; p ≤ 0.05 and w = difference medium and large effect size are in bold.

The influence of the RAE in the top 100 female players in the whole period of 2007–2016 in terms of age and handedness

Table 3 contains the results of the assessment of the RAE in four age subgroups and in two subgroups in terms of handedness (LH and RH). The participants (n = 994, age range 17–36y) were divided into four age subgroups SG1 (17–18y, n = 38); SG2 (19–24y, n = 486); SG3 (25–30y, n = 405) and SG4 (31–36y, n = 65). The assessment of the RAE existence in terms of handedness was performed in two subgroups: the left-handed (LH: n = 78, 7.8%) and right-handed (RH: n = 922, 92.2%) female players.

Table 3. Comparison of the RAE in terms of age distribution and handedness (2007–2016).

Group Birth quarter n χ2 p w
Q1 (%) Q2 (%) Q3 (%) Q4 (%)
SG1 42.1 23.7 18.4 15.8 38 6.7 0.08 0.42
SG2 32.3 24.1 23.3 20.4 486 16.7 0.00 0.19
SG3 31.6 27.9 25.7 14.8 405 26.6 0.00 0.26
SG4 30.8 36.9 26.2 6.2 65 14.1 0.00 0.47
LH 50.0 34.6 5.1 10.3 78 42.5 0.00 0.74
RH 30.6 25.6 26.4 17.5 922 35.4 0.00 0.20

Qi = quartile, n = statistical file size, SG1 = junior players, SG2,3,4 = senior players, LH = Left-Handed, RH = Right-Handed, χ2 = chi-square test (goodness of fit), p = level of statistical significance, w = ES index; p ≤ 0.05 and w = difference medium and large effect size are in bold.

Of the four age subgroups, significant RAE was proven in SG2 and SG3 (ES small), SG4 (ES medium), while there was no significant RAE observed in SG1 (but ES was medium).

In assessing the impact of handedness in two subgroups (LH and RH) of female tennis players, significant RAE was detected in both subgroups; however, ES was large only in the LH subgroup. There were 84.6% players born in S1 among the LH players, while 56.2% among the RH players; thus, in both cases an absolute majority.

Discussion

Many authors have documented the influence of the RAE by a larger number of female tennis players born in the first semester (S1, January–June) compared to the second semester (S2, July–December). In the presented study, more than a half of elite female tennis players were born in S1 both in individual years (53–63%) and in the whole observed period (58.4%). Cumming [42] and Hopkins [43] consider estimation, based on effect sizes (ESs) and confidence intervals (CIs), much better than null hypothesis significance testing. Statistical power has relevance only when the null is false [44]. Therefore, in the event of a discrepancy between the conclusions obtained by means of statistical significance (p) and effect size (w), we are inclined to the conclusions arising from ES, also due to the deliberate selection of the research group. In accordance with the opinions of the above quoted authors, we use effect size (ES) for the assessment of the RAE impact, and not just p values. If no ES values were given in the cited studies, they were calculated on the basis of published data.

Edgar and O’Donoghue [2] found more than a half of elite senior female players born in S1 (60.7%), as did O’Donoghue [37], who identified 63.3% in S1, resp. Ribeiro et al. [35] showing almost 60% female players in S1. Similar data were published also by Wendling and Mills [45], who found 56.6% born in S1 (“born before 1982” 56.6% and “born after 1982” 56.5%) among professional female players. Only in the whole group of U.S. women did the authors find a lower representation of players born in S1 (47.8%). In a more recent study by Agricola et al. [26] 61.0% of female players born in S1 were found among the top 100 senior female tennis players (WTA Rankings).

The existence of significant RAE (but ES is small/trivial) in tennis has already been proven among elite senior female tennis players by Edgar and O’Donoghue [2] and also O’Donoghue [34]. In a more recent study, Agricola et al. [26] found a significant RAE (ES was small) among top 100 senior female tennis players (WTA Rankings 2014–2018). In a study similar to our research, Gerdin et al. [30] showed—in three subgroups of junior tennis players in Sweden—a significant RAE (ES was small) in ranked top 50 junior female players and no significant RAE among top 10 female players (ES was medium). Similar results were found in our study: in individual years, significant RAE was observed (ES was medium) in top 100 elite female tennis players only in the years 2012 and 2016; significant RAE (ES was small) was detected in the whole period of 2007–2016. Significant RAE (ES was medium) was proven among top 10 elite female players both by Gerdin et al. [30] and in our study, which indicates an increasing effect of the RAE with growing performance.

A relatively large number of studies have been published in the scientific literature assessing the RAE existence among senior female athletes in other sports. Only van den Honert [46] showed significant RAE and ES was medium in a relatively small group (n = 52) of elite senior female football players in Australia. All the following cited authors did find significant RAE, but ES was small or trivial: for instance, Baker, Schorer, Cobley, Bräutigam and Büsch [47] in female German handball; Baker, Janning, Wong, Cobley and Schorer [48] in cross-country, alpine skiing, snowboard, gymnastics; Delorme et al. [7] in female soccer players; Ferreira et al. [49] in female Olympic swimmers and Savassi Figueiredo et al. [50] among elite beach handball athletes for both sexes. In a large number of studies, no significant RAE (ES small or trivial) was found among senior female athletes both in individual and collective sports. Such conclusions were published by Albuquerque et al. [51] in Olympic Taekwondo female athletes, Albuquerque et al. [23] in Olympic Judo Female Athletes, de la Rubia Riaza et al. [20] among elite female handball players in World Handball Championships, Delaš Kalinski, Jelaska and Atiković [52] of female Olympian gymnasts, Delorme et al., [7] in female soccer, Hammer [53] in elite female ski jumpers (between the first and second semesters), Lemez, MacMahon and Weir [54] in Women’s Rugby World Cups, Lidor, Arnon, Maayan, Gershon and Côté [55] in Division 1 female ballgame Israeli-born players in handball, football and volleyball (ES is medium only in basketball), Mon-López, Tejero-González, de la Rubia Riaza and Calvo [56] in female shooters (rifle and pistol) in the World Shooting Championship, Parma and Penna [22] in Brazilian women’s elite volleyball, Werneck et al., [16] in Olympic Games female basketball athletes.

In a sub-part of this presented study, the issue of the RAE among the subgroups of female players was investigated according to handedness (LH and RH). A significant RAE (ES large) was observed among the elite top 100 female tennis players in LH, and significant RAE (ES small) in RH players; Loffing et al. [38] in a similar study among elite top 500 professional male tennis players, showed a significant RAE (ES small) in RH and no significant RAE (ES small) in LH players.

In summary, it can be stated that the values of the relative number of senior female tennis players (top 100 WTA Rankings) born in S1 more or less correspond with the results of the quoted studies in the field of tennis (56.6–63.3%) both in individual years (53.0–63.0%) and in the whole period of 2007–2016 (58.4%). Only in a part of study by the authors Wendling and Mills [45], the number of U.S. women tennis players born in S1 differs significantly (47.8%, resp. 44.1%). Similarly, to our study, where significant RAE was detected between elite female players (but ES small) in the whole period of 2007–2016, other authors also found in tennis [2, 26, 34] a significant RAE (but ES small or trivial). In vast majority of studies aimed at assessing the existence of the RAE in other sports, the existence of the RAE also was not proven among elite female athletes, resp. ES was only small. This confirms the opinion of many authors that the RAE existence does not manifest itself in most cases during adulthood and its impact disappears [12].

Conclusion

The aim of this presented study was to verify the existence of the RAE in elite senior female players, who were among top 100 players in WTA Rankings (n = 1000) at the end of the season in the years of 2007–2016. The results of the existence of the RAE among top 100 tennis players in individual years showed that more than a half of elite female tennis players both in individual years (53–63%) and in the whole observed period (58.4%) were born in S1. Based on statistical analysis, significant RAE was observed in top 100 elite female tennis players in individual years only in the years of 2012 and 2016 (ES was medium); significant RAE was also detected in the whole observed period of 2007–2016 (but ES was only small). Significant RAE was proven among top 10 elite female players (ES was medium) in the period of 2007–2016, which indicates a growing impact of the RAE with increasing performance. Among the four age subgroups, no significant RAE was proven (ES medium) in SG1 (17–18y); significant RAE (ES small) was observed in SG2 (19–24y), SG3 (25–30y) and SG4 (31–36y), where it was strongest (ES medium). The assessment of the impact of the RAE in left-handed (LH) and right-handed (RH) tennis players showed in the two subgroups a significant RAE in LH (ES large) and in RH (ES small).

An important outcome for practice is raising awareness of the possible consequences of the RAE among coaches, sports officials and parents so that there is no more selection bias causing age-grouping effect in junior age categories, which could cause drop-out of relatively younger female players and thus negatively influence the effectiveness of the selection system of talented athletes.

Limitations

Limitations of this study should be noted. The results of presented study are specific for top 100 best senior female professional tennis players from the WTA Rankings 2007–2016 and should not be generalized for other samples. The study uses only quantitative data collection, which limits a deeper understanding of the RAE issue in this research. Another limit may be the repetition of the occurrence of the research data of some female players in individual years, as they had been frequently taking positions among the top 100, resp. top 10 of the WTA rankings (although in a small number of cases). In terms of conclusiveness of the results, the relatively small sizes of some subgroups can also be a problem, for instance SG1 (n = 38), SG4 (n = 65) and LH (n = 78); this, however, reflects the discovered reality. The results of this study can contribute to expanding the knowledge of the RAE issue for coaches, athletes and tennis officials. The study, however, does not present any proposals how to reduce the impact of the RAE in sports practice (if at all possible, in professional tennis). To assess RAE in women’s tennis, it would be useful for future research to focus on a longer period of time in the context of the strategy and tactics of the game.

Supporting information

S1 File. Dataset of top 10 and top 100 female tennis players in 2007–2016.

Dataset contains ranking, birth month and handedness of the female tennis players in 2007–2016.

(XLSX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This publication was written at Masaryk University as part of the project "Laterality in the context of diagnostics of selected factors of sports performance in tennis and injury prevention" number MUNI/A/ 1637/2020 with the support of the Specific University Research Grant, as provided by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic in the year 2021. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Dudink A. Birth date and sporting success. Nature. 1994; 368(6472): 592. 10.1038/368592a0.8145842 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Edgar S O ’Donoghue P. Season of birth distribution of elite tennis players. J Sports Sci. 2005; 23(10): 1013–20. doi: 10.1080/02640410400021468 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Figueiredo AJ, Gonçalves CE, Coelho e Silva MJ, Malina RM. Characteristics of youth soccer players who drop out, persist or move up. J Sports Sci. 2009; 27(9): 883–91. doi: 10.1080/02640410902946469 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Agricola A, Zháněl J, Hubáček O. Relative age effect in junior tennis (male). Acta Gymnica. 2013; 43(1): 27–33. 10.5507/ag.2013.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hirose N. Relationships among Birth-month distribution, skeletal age and anthropometric characteristics in Adolescent elite soccer players. J Sports Sci. 2009; 27(11): 1159–66. doi: 10.1080/02640410903225145 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Doebler S, Shuttleworth I, Gould M. Does the Month of Birth Affect Educational and Health Outcomes? A Population-Based Analysis Using the Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study. Econ Soc Rev. 2017; 48(3): 281–304. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Delorme N, Boiché J, Raspaud M. Relative age effect in female sport: A diachronic examination of soccer players. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2009; 20(3): 509–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.00979.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Pintner R, Forlano G. The birth month of eminent men. J Appl Psychol. 1934; 18(2): 178–88. 10.1037/h0069821. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Grondin S, Deshaies P, Nault L. Trimestre de naissance et participation au hockey et au volleyball. La revue Québécoise de l’activité physique. 1984; 2(3): 97–103. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Barnsley R, Thompson A, Barnsley P. Hockey success and birthdate: the relative age effect. Cahper J. 1985; 51(8): 23–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Thompson AH, Barnsley RH, Stebelsky G. “Born to play ball” the relative age effect and major league baseball. Sociol Sport J. 1991; 8(2): 146–51. 10.1123/ssj.8.2.146. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Barnsley RH, Thompson AH, Legault P. Family planning: Football style. The relative age effect in football. Int Rev Sociol Sport. 1992; 27(1): 77–87. 10.1177/101269029202700105. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Cobley S, Baker J, Wattie N, McKenna J. Annual age-grouping and athlete development. Sports Med. 2009; 39(3): 235–56. 10.2165/00007256-200939030-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Barnsley RH, Thompson AH. Birthdate and success in minor hockey: The key to the NHL. Can J Behav. 1988; 20(2): 167–76. 10.1037/h0079927. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Baxter-Jones ADG. Growth and development of young athletes. Sports Med. 1995; 20(2): 59–64. 10.1123/kr.2019-0024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Werneck FZ, Coelho EF, de Oliveira HZ, Ribeiro Júnior DB, Almas SP, de Lima JRP, et al. Relative age effect in Olympic basketball athletes. Science & Sports. 2016; 31(3): 158–61. 10.1016/j.scispo.2015.08.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lupo C, Boccia G, Ungureanu AN, Frati R, Marocco R, Brustio PR. The beginning of senior career in team sport is affected by relative age effect. Front Psychol. 2019; 10: art#1465 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01465 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gil SM, Bidaurrazaga-Letona I, Martin-Garetxana I, Lekue JA, Larruskain J. Does birth date influence career attainment in professional soccer? Sci Med Footb. 2019; 4(2): 119–26. 10.1080/24733938.2019.1696471. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Brustio PR, Lupo C, Ungureanu AN, Frati R, Rainoldi A, Boccia G. The realative age effect is greater in Italian soccer top-level youth categories and less in serie A. PlosOne. 2018; 13(4): e0196253. 10.1371/journal.pone.0196253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.de la Rubia Bjørndal CT, Sánchez-Molina J Yagüe JM, Calvo JL, Maroto-Izquierdo S. The relationship between the relative age effect and performance among athletes in World Handball Championships. Plos One. 2020; 15(3). 10.1371/journal.pone.0230133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Nykodým J, Bozděch M, Agricola A, Zháněl J. The relative age effect at the ice Hockey World Championships (IHWC) in the years 2015–2017. J Hum Kinet. 2020; 75(1): 150–9. 10.2478/hukin-2020-0044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Parma JO, Penna EM. The relative age effect on Brazilian elite volleyball. J Phys Educ. 2018; 29(1), e2942. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Albuquerque MR, Franchini E, Lage GM, Da Costa VT, Costa IT, Malloy-Diniz LF. The relative age effect in combat sports: An analysis of Olympic judo athletes, 1964–2012. Percept Mot Skills. 2015; 121(1): 1–9. doi: 10.2466/10.PMS.121c15x2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Brustio PR, Kearney PE, Lupo C, Ungureanu AN, Mulasso A, Rainoldi A, et al. Relative age influences performance of world-class track and field athletes even in the adulthood. Front Psychol. 2019; 10: art#1395. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01395 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Brustio PR, Boccia G, De Pasquale P, Lupo C, Ungureanu AN. Small Relative Age Effect appears in professional female Italian team sports. Int J Enivon. Res Public Health. 2022; 19(385): 1–9. 10.3390/ijerph19010385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Agricola A, Bozděch M, Zvonař M, Zháněl J. The relative age effect in top 100 female tennis players (2014–2018). In Cacek J, Sajdlová Z, Šimková K editors. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Kinanthropology; 262–269. 2021. Brno, Czech Republic: Masaryk University. 10.5817/cz.muni.p210-9631-2020-34. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Giacomini CP. Association of birthdate with success of nationally ranked junior tennis players in the United States. Percept Mot Skills. 1999; 89(2): 381–6. doi: 10.2466/pms.1999.89.2.381 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Moreira JP, Lopes MC, Faria LO, Albuquerque MR. Relative age effect and constituent year effect: An analysis of the international Tennis Federation ranking. J Phys Educ. 2017; 28(1). 10.4025/jphyseduc.v28i1.2814. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.O’Donoghue P. Season of birth effects on elite junior tennis players’ world rankings. In: Lees A, Cabello D, Torres G editors. IV Congreso Mundial de Ciencia y Deportes de Raqueta; 2006. 275–281. London, England: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gerdin G, Hedberg M, Hageskog C-A. Relative age effect in Swedish male and female tennis players born in 1998–2001. Sports. 2018; 6(2): 38. 10.3390/sports6020038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ulbricht A, Fernandez-Fernandez J, Mendez-Villanueva A, Ferrauti A. The Relative Age Effect and Physical Fitness Characteristics in German Male Tennis Players. J Sports Sci Med. 2015; 14(3): 634–642. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pacharoni R, Aoki MS, Costa EC, Moreira A, Massa M. Efeito da idade relativa no tênis. Revista Brasileira de Ciência e Movimento. 2014; 22(3): 111–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Söğüt M, Luz LGO, Kaya ÖB, Altunsoy K, Doğan AA, Kirazci S, et al. Age–and Maturity-Related variations in morphology, body composition, and motor fitness among young female tennis players. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16(13): 2412. 10.3390/ijerph16132412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.O’Donoghue P. Relative Age in elite tennis. Studies in Physical Culture & Tourism. 2009; 16(4): 379–388. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ribeiro EJF, Keller B, Pereira JL, Coelho RW, Boas MSV, Grunevald E. O fenômeno da idade relativa em atletas de tênis infantojuvenil e profissional: nível de associação com o ranking da federação Sul-americana e mundial. Revista da Educação Física. 2013; 24(3): 371–379. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Li P, Weissensteiner JR, Pion J, Bosscher VD. Predicting elite Success: Evidence comparing the career pathways of top 10 to 300 professional tennis players. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2020; 15(5–6): 793–802. 10.1177/1747954120935828. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.O’Donoghue P. Relative age effect on elite tennis strategy for players born before and after 1st January 1985. Int J Perform. 2014; 14(2): 453–462. 10.1080/24748668.2014.11868734. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Loffing F, Schorer J, Cobley SP. Relative age effects are a developmental problem in tennis: But not necessarily when you’re left‐handed! High Abil Stud. 2010; 21(1): 19–25. 10.1080/13598139.2010.488084. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Myburgh GK, Cumming SP, Coelho E Silva M, Cooke K, Malina RM. Growth and maturity status of elite British junior tennis players. J Sports Sci. 2016; 34(20): 1957–64. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1149213 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Steidl-Müller L, Hildebrandt C, Raschner C, Müller E. Challenges of talent development in alpine ski racing: A narrative review. J Sports Sci. 2019; 37(6): 601–12. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1513355 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Cumming G. The new Statistics: A how‐to guide. Aus Psychol. 2013; 48(3): 161–70. 10.1111/ap.12018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hopkins W.G., a new view of statistics. Internet society for SPORT science, http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/. 2013. [cited 2021May26]. Available from: http://www.sciepub.com/reference/297109. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ellis PD. The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Wendling E, Mills BM. Mitigation of relative age effects through targeted policy intervention: A natural experiment from professional tennis. Soc Sci Q. 2018; 99(4): 1496–509. 10.1111/ssqu.12516. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.van den Honert R. Evidence of the relative age effect in football in Australia. J Sports Sci. 2012; 30(13):1365–74. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2012.707329 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Baker J, Schorer J, Cobley S, Bräutigam H, Büsch D. Gender, Depth of Competition and Relative Age Effects in Team Sports. Asian J Exerc Sports Sci. 2009; 6(1): 7–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Baker J, Janning C, Wong H, Cobley S, Schorer J. Variations in relative age effects in individual sports: Skiing, figure skating and gymnastics. Eur J Sport Sci. 2012; 14 (sup1). doi: 10.1080/17461391.2012.671369 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ferreira RM, Coelho EF, Morais AV, Werneck FZ, Tucher G, Lisboa AL. The relative age effect in Olympic swimmers. Revista Portuguesa de Ciências do Desporto. 2017; 2017(S2A): 104–14. 10.5628/rpcd.17.s2a.104. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Savassi Figueiredo L, Ribeiro LC, Pereira Fialho JVA, Da Silva DG, Gantois P, Costa GCT, et al. Relative Age Effects and team performance among elite beach handball athletes. J Phys Educ Sport. 2020; 20(6): 3354–3360. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Albuquerque MR, Lage GM, Costa VT, Ferreira RM, Penna EM, Moraes LC, et al. Relative age effect in Olympic taekwondo athletes. Percept Mot Skills. 2012; 114(2): 461–8. doi: 10.2466/05.25.PMS.114.2.461-468 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Delaš Kalinski S, Jelaska PM, Atiković A. Relative age effect among Olympian gymnasts. Sci Gymnast. 2018; 10(3): 493–507. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Hammer T. Relative age effect in international ski jumping: analysis of FIS World Cup and FIS Junior World Ski Championships. J Phys Educ Sport. 2020; 20(3): 1455–146057. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Lemez S, MacMahon C, Weir P. Relative age effects in Women’s rugby Union from Developmental leagues to World Cup tournaments. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2016; 87(1): 59–67. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2015.1116120 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Lidor R, Arnon M, Maayan Z, Gershon T, Côté J. Relative age effect and birthplace effect in Division 1 female ballgame players–the relevance of sport-specific factors. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2013; 12(1): 19–33. 10.1080/1612197x.2012.756232. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Mon-López D, Tejero-González CM, de la Rubia Riaza A, Calvo JL. Pistol and rifle performance: Gender and relative age effect analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(4): 1365. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17041365 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Javier Abián-Vicén

22 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-01603The Relative Age Effect in Top 100 Elite Female Tennis Players in 2007–2016PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Agricola,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Dear Authors,

two experts in the field revised your current manuscript and recognised some points that should be addressed. 

Authors should pay special attention to use more recent references about the topic.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 06 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Javier Abián-Vicén, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Abstract

Line 42: “resp. tennis officials” could be rephrased with “tennis officials”

Introduction

In general, the introduction should be better structured, considering RAE in general for professional/adult players, individual sports and female athletes, avoiding considering not so pertinent research areas (e.g. RAE in youth athletes), which could make this section as less readable.

Lines 59-61. For this sentence, the following papers should be considered for their pertinence and recent publication about RAE in soccer (Brustio et al., 2018) and volleyball, basketball, rugby, and water polo (Lupo et al., 2019) professional players.

- Brustio P.R., Lupo C., Ungureanu A.N., Frati R., Rainoldi A., Boccia G. (2018). The relative age effect is larger in Italian soccer top-level youth categories and smaller in Serie A. PLOS ONE. 13(4), Article number: e0196253.

- Lupo C., Boccia G., Ungureanu A.N., Frati R., Marocco R., Brustio P.R. (2019). The beginning of senior career in team sport is affected by relative age effect. Frontiers in Psychology. 10, art #1465.

Lines 62-67. Why does studies about RAE in youth athletes are reported despite the present article in on professional ones? What about deleting it? On the other hand, more information about RAE on female athletes in general should be reported to better introduce the topic treated by the present article. A recent example about this area of research has reported as follows:

- Brustio P.R. Boccia G., De Pasquale P., Lupo C., Ungureanu A.N., (2022) Small Relative Age Effect Appears in Professional Female Italian Team Sports. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 385.

Lines 112-118. The following article about RAE in track and field athletes represents a pertinent example of RAE in individual sports and could be cited to support the introduction of the study.

- Brustio P.R., Kearney P.E., Lupo C., Ungureanu A.N., Mulasso A., Rainoldi A., Boccia G. (2019). Relative age influences performance of world-class track and field athletes even in the adulthood. Frontiers in Psychology. 10, art #1395.

Method

Line 130. “Participants” could be more properly rephrased with “Procedures” considering that the classification of data is described in this section.

Results

This section has been well structured

Discussion

At the beginning of this section, the main findings (lines 231-232) should be highlighted. Instead, authors reported an “experimental approach to the problem” part, which could be reported following to the main findings or treated in the Introduction section.

Limitations

Although limitations have been properly reported, some consequent and future research purposes to better contributing to the understanding of RAE in tennis or, more specifically, in female tennis, could be provided.

Reviewer #2: The article titled “The Relative Age Effect in Top 1 100 Elite Female Tennis Players in 2007–2016” corresponds to a reasonable contribution in the field of sports scientces, particularly in tennis.

Please avoid redundancy among title and short title

The abstract should be organized into a shorter introduction (background), methods, results and discussion. As it is, readers do not contact with a concise research question (introduction is too long). The methodology regarding may be improved regarding the presenttion of the database, its size and the statistics.

Avoid abreviatons in the abtsract: At P2L41, what means “coaches, athletes, resp. tennis officials”

The first two paragraphs of the introduction devote too much information on other sports. Please, consider the presentation of the thematic (relative age effect), the theoretical framework from education and briefly in youth sports. Afterwards, try to exclusively focus in tennis. The revised introduction may be structured into 3-4 paragraphs.

P6: “participants” or “sample”. This reviewer assume the sample did not accept to particiupate in the study that used a indirect source of data.

Please review the qualitative interpretation of d-cohen values, it is usually “trivial”, “small”, “moderate”, “large”, “very large”. Please, check

The section results do not claim headline “The RAE in top 100 and top 10 female tennis players in the whole period of 2007–2016”, “The influence of the RAE in top 100 female players in the individual years of 2007–2016”, “The influence of the RAE in the top 100 female players in the whole period of 2007–2016 in terms of age and handedness”.

In fact “The influence of the ERA...” corresponds to “the influence of the Effect”. This reviewer believes that authors may attain a concise statement

The discussion is circular. Please organize the following paragraphs: “main findings”, “state of the art in tennis”, “limitations”, “practical application”, “conclusion”

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 22;17(11):e0276668. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276668.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


5 Oct 2022

Dear reviewers,

thank you for your comments. We have tried to consider all of your recommendations. Please find below our comments on every recommendation.

Authors

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Abstract

Line 42: “resp. tennis officials” could be rephrased with “tennis officials”

This part was rephrased (no more abbreviation). Based on the recommendation of the second reviewer, the background was also modified.

Introduction

In general, the introduction should be better structured, considering RAE in general for professional/adult players, individual sports and female athletes, avoiding considering not so pertinent research areas (e.g. RAE in youth athletes), which could make this section as less readable.

The introduction has been edited; studies with young athletes were deleted. We hope that the introduction is now more readable.

Lines 59-61. For this sentence, the following papers should be considered for their pertinence and recent publication about RAE in soccer (Brustio et al., 2018) and volleyball, basketball, rugby, and water polo (Lupo et al., 2019) professional players.

- Brustio P.R., Lupo C., Ungureanu A.N., Frati R., Rainoldi A., Boccia G. (2018). The relative age effect is larger in Italian soccer top-level youth categories and smaller in Serie A. PLOS ONE. 13(4), Article number: e0196253.

- Lupo C., Boccia G., Ungureanu A.N., Frati R., Marocco R., Brustio P.R. (2019). The beginning of senior career in team sport is affected by relative age effect. Frontiers in Psychology. 10, art #1465.

Both mentioned studies have been added to the manuscript. Thank you for your recommendation.

Lines 62-67. Why does studies about RAE in youth athletes are reported despite the present article in on professional ones? What about deleting it? On the other hand, more information about RAE on female athletes in general should be reported to better introduce the topic treated by the present article. A recent example about this area of research has reported as follows:

- Brustio P.R. Boccia G., De Pasquale P., Lupo C., Ungureanu A.N., (2022) Small Relative Age Effect Appears in Professional Female Italian Team Sports. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 385.

As was mentioned above, studies with young athletes were deleted. Information from the aforementioned article was added to the text. More information (also from the recommended study Brustio et al., 2022) about RAE on female athletes has been added to the manuscript.

Lines 112-118. The following article about RAE in track and field athletes represents a pertinent example of RAE in individual sports and could be cited to support the introduction of the study.

- Brustio P.R., Kearney P.E., Lupo C., Ungureanu A.N., Mulasso A., Rainoldi A., Boccia G. (2019). Relative age influences performance of world-class track and field athletes even in the adulthood. Frontiers in Psychology. 10, art #1395.

This study was added to the introductory part of the text. Thank you for the recommendation.

Method

Line 130. “Participants” could be more properly rephrased with “Procedures” considering that the classification of data is described in this section.

It was modified according to the reviewer's recommendation.

Results

This section has been well structured

Thank you.

Discussion

At the beginning of this section, the main findings (lines 231-232) should be highlighted. Instead, authors reported an “experimental approach to the problem” part, which could be reported following to the main findings or treated in the Introduction section.

The introductory part of the discussion was edited as recommended. First, the main findings of the study are presented followed by an "experimental approach to the problem”.

Limitations

Although limitations have been properly reported, some consequent and future research purposes to better contributing to the understanding of RAE in tennis or, more specifically, in female tennis, could be provided.

The short text with suggestions for future research has been added to this part of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The article titled “The Relative Age Effect in Top 1 100 Elite Female Tennis Players in 2007–2016” corresponds to a reasonable contribution in the field of sports scientces, particularly in tennis.

Please avoid redundancy among title and short title

The short title was edited.

The abstract should be organized into a shorter introduction (background), methods, results and discussion. As it is, readers do not contact with a concise research question (introduction is too long). The methodology regarding may be improved regarding the presenttion of the database, its size and the statistics.

The background has been condensed into one sentence. The methodology and results are described to include the necessary information and the most important results. We believe that further shortening the abstract would contribute to the loss of important information for the reader.

Avoid abreviatons in the abtsract: At P2L41, what means “coaches, athletes, resp. tennis officials”

That sentence has been edited and the abbreviation deleted.

The first two paragraphs of the introduction devote too much information on other sports. Please, consider the presentation of the thematic (relative age effect), the theoretical framework from education and briefly in youth sports. Afterwards, try to exclusively focus in.

We believe that the information given in the first paragraph is very brief, but important for an introduction to RAE. We think it is worth mentioning in the introduction the first research in this area, the first study of RAE in sport (Barnsley et al.) as well as the first meta-analytic RAE study (Cobley et al.). Other information has been deleted on recommendation (Baxter-Jones study).

The second paragraph has been completely rewritten, studies from other sports have been deleted. (This information has been replaced with information on REA in women, based on the recommendation of the second reviewer).

P6: “participants” or “sample”. This reviewer assume the sample did not accept to particiupate in the study that used a indirect source of data.

That term has been modified (also pointed out by the first reviewer).

Please review the qualitative interpretation of d-cohen values, it is usually “trivial”, “small”, “moderate”, “large”, “very large”. Please, check

The evaluation of ES index w was interpreted as small (w = 0.10), medium (w = 0.30) or large (w = 0.50) based on Cohen [42]. Some authors later extended the Scale of magnitudes for effect statistics to more intervals (Hoppkins, W.G. (2016). A New View of Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.html).

The section results do not claim headline “The RAE in top 100 and top 10 female tennis players in the whole period of 2007–2016”, “The influence of the RAE in top 100 female players in the individual years of 2007–2016”, “The influence of the RAE in the top 100 female players in the whole period of 2007–2016 in terms of age and handedness”.

In fact, “The influence of the RAE...” corresponds to “the influence of the Effect”. This reviewer believes that authors may attain a concise statement

We are sorry that we cannot understand the exact meaning of this comment. However, we assume that the reviewer recommends removing the subheadings in the Results chapter to make the text more concise.

However, we would like to keep the subheadings in this chapter: we feel that they make the chapter significantly clearer in relation to the main research aims of the thesis. This allows the reader to quickly and easily find the answer to a specific research question in the chapter. However, if the reviewer considers this modification important, we are prepared to remove the subheadings.

The discussion is circular. Please organize the following paragraphs: “main findings”, “state of the art in tennis”, “limitations”, “practical application”, “conclusion”

The discussion was edited (the comments of both reviewers were included).

________________________________________

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

________________________________________

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Javier Abián-Vicén

12 Oct 2022

The Relative Age Effect in Top 100 Elite Female Tennis Players in 2007–2016

PONE-D-22-01603R1

Dear Dr. Agricola,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Javier Abián-Vicén, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Congratulations for your work!

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Congratulations for your paper. I think the document meets the criteria established by Plos One to be published.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Javier Abián-Vicén

11 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-01603R1

The Relative Age Effect in Top 100 Elite Female Tennis Players in 2007–2016

Dear Dr. Agricola:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Javier Abián-Vicén

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Dataset of top 10 and top 100 female tennis players in 2007–2016.

    Dataset contains ranking, birth month and handedness of the female tennis players in 2007–2016.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES