Sport psychology and performance meta-analyses: A systematic review of the literature

Marc Lochbaum; Elisabeth Stoner; Tristen Hefner; Sydney Cooper; Andrew M. Lane; Peter C. Terry

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263408

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 28, 2021
7 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Claudio Imperatori, Editor PONE-D-21-31186Sport psychology and performance meta-analyses: A systematic review of the literaturePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lochbaum, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 21 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, Claudio Imperatori, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal 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 2. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. [I believe our answer is no. In 2017, I spoke about meta-analyses and sport performance at the Kinesiology Conference in Croatia. This conference proceeding is appropriately referenced.] Please clarify whether this conference proceeding was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript. 3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [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: No 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: No 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: The paper entitled: “Sport psychology and performance meta-analyses: A systematic review of the literature” aimed to synthesize the extant literature to gain insights into the overall impact of sport psychology on athletic performance. The paper is well written and has a great and strong methodology. However, the introduction and discussion are not persuasive enough that the findings make a significant contribution to the literature and could therefore override these limitations. I include some comments below related to this summary for consideration. 1. In relation to the contribution of the study to the literature, I did not get a sense from the article that the findings revealed anything other than what we already know. Please clarified that; 2. The introduction of the paper was very descriptive, it did not situate the current study in literature or highlight what the gap in the literature is that this study is trying to address. At least, the authors should situate better the main purposes of this study; 3. The discussion is very descriptive and any statements about the contribution and conclusions of the study are not new. At least this moment. Please clarified better and justified your choices. 4. Overall, the paper has conditions for be accepted in PLOS ONE, however the authors should clarified the points above. Reviewer #2: The submitted work presents a very interesting approach to summarize the results of systematic reviews/meta-analysis regarding sport psychology and performance. I must say that it is rare as a reviewer to find a so relevant and well developed study (particularly a review of literature) in which I can add and help so little. The authors are to be commended for the excellent work developed. Given this, I can make 1 or 2 remarks in some sections, although I do not believe they are needed to ensure a final quality of the developed work. I believe this work can be published as it is, and my comments should only be considered if the authors feel they are noteworthy. Lines 99 to 102. Given that several examples were presented before (e.g., journals), why the inclusion of only one book? Several examples could be given here, thus maintaining the line of reasoning presented before. In method, why report PRISMA 2009, 2015 and 2020 guidelines? As stated in the Page et al (2020) reference used: "The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesis studies". Won't the 2020 reference be enough? As a last remark, I wonder if a discussion (or a comment in the discussion/limitations) regarding mood, and particularly POMS, is needed. In this work and in some of the cited works (e.g., Lochbaum et al., 2021, EJIHPE) no discussion regarding the issues of POMS as an assessing tool for mood is presented. As mentioned by several researchers (e.g., Ekkekakis, 2013), POMS do not assess mood, at least not in a global domain. This do not impact directly this work, as generally only each of the six distinct states are explored. However, when interpreting figure 2 and extracting mood results, perhaps some clarification would frame the readers on this issues and respective interpretation of results. Ekkekakis, P. (2013). The measurement of affect, mood and emotion. Cambridge University Press. I am sorry I can not help any further with my comments. Thank you for your work. Best regards ****** 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: Yes:** Diogo S. Teixeira [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263408.r001
Revision 1
13 Dec 2021 Author Response Response to Reviewers Thank you to both reviewers for taking time to review and comment on our manuscript. We addressed all comments. Reviewer's Responses to Questions 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 Author response: Thank you to the reviewers for their positive comments. ________________________________________ 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Author response: Thank you to the reviewers for their positive comments. ________________________________________ 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes Author response: All pertinent data are found in Table 1 – 2 and in Figure 1. ________________________________________ 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes Author response: Reviewer 1’s concerns have been addressed below. ________________________________________ 5. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1 The paper entitled: “Sport psychology and performance meta-analyses: A systematic review of the literature” aimed to synthesize the extant literature to gain insights into the overall impact of sport psychology on athletic performance. The paper is well written and has a great and strong methodology. However, the introduction and discussion are not persuasive enough that the findings make a significant contribution to the literature and could therefore override these limitations. I include some comments below related to this summary for consideration. • Author response: We have amended the paper to address the three concerns below. Comment 1. In relation to the contribution of the study to the literature, I did not get a sense from the article that the findings revealed anything other than what we already know. Please clarified that; • Author response: We have expanded on the gap in the knowledge that we addressed on lines 115-121 on the revised manuscript. Comment 2. The introduction of the paper was very descriptive, it did not situate the current study in literature or highlight what the gap in the literature is that this study is trying to address. At least, the authors should situate better the main purposes of this study; • Author response: Currently, sport psychology practitioners wishing to use evidence-based strategies are faced with inconsistent evidence about the efficacy of sport psychology techniques. Our paper addresses this inconsistency by assessing the effectiveness of techniques collectively. This is explained on lines 115-121 and with some small modifications on lines 125-128. Comment 3. The discussion is very descriptive and any statements about the contribution and conclusions of the study are not new. At least this moment. Please clarified better and justified your choices. • Author response: As suggested, a stronger summary of the contribution of the paper is provided on lines 371-375. We would also argue that the recommendations section for improvements to future studies also represents a significant contribution to the body of knowledge. If the information provided is already well known, as the reviewer suggests, then we would question why previous investigators have not implemented it in their studies. Comment 4. Overall, the paper has conditions for be accepted in PLOS ONE, however the authors should clarified the points above. • Author response: We thank you for your comments, which have served to improve our paper. Reviewer #2 The submitted work presents a very interesting approach to summarize the results of systematic reviews/meta-analysis regarding sport psychology and performance. I must say that it is rare as a reviewer to find a so relevant and well developed study (particularly a review of literature) in which I can add and help so little. The authors are to be commended for the excellent work developed. • Author response: Many thanks for your extremely positive comments. Comment 1. Given this, I can make 1 or 2 remarks in some sections, although I do not believe they are needed to ensure a final quality of the developed work. I believe this work can be published as it is, and my comments should only be considered if the authors feel they are noteworthy. Lines 99 to 102. Given that several examples were presented before (e.g., journals), why the inclusion of only one book? Several examples could be given here, thus maintaining the line of reasoning presented before. • Author response: As suggested, we have added some additional references to books on lines 99-104 and added them to the reference list on lines 523-524 and 527-529. Comment 2. In method, why report PRISMA 2009, 2015 and 2020 guidelines? As stated in the Page et al (2020) reference used: "The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesis studies". Won't the 2020 reference be enough? • Author response: As suggested, we have removed reference to the PRISMA guidelines published in 2009 and 2015. Comment 3. As a last remark, I wonder if a discussion (or a comment in the discussion/limitations) regarding mood, and particularly POMS, is needed. In this work and in some of the cited works (e.g., Lochbaum et al., 2021, EJIHPE) no discussion regarding the issues of POMS as an assessing tool for mood is presented. As mentioned by several researchers (e.g., Ekkekakis, 2013), POMS do not assess mood, at least not in a global domain. This do not impact directly this work, as generally only each of the six distinct states are explored. However, when interpreting figure 2 and extracting mood results, perhaps some clarification would frame the readers on this issues and respective interpretation of results. Ekkekakis, P. (2013). The measurement of affect, mood and emotion. Cambridge University Press. • Author response: It was not our intent to critique the construct validity of the measures used in the meta-analyses we reviewed. Nevertheless, as suggested, we have added a note that the POMS and its derivatives do not measure all aspects of the global domain of mood (see lines 364-366). I am sorry I cannot help any further with my comments. Thank you for your work. Best regards • Author response: We are delighted to know that you thought so highly of our paper. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263408.r002
19 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Claudio Imperatori, Editor Sport psychology and performance meta-analyses: A systematic review of the literature PONE-D-21-31186R1 Dear Dr. Lochbaum, 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, Claudio Imperatori, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #1: No Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #1: No more comments. The authors adressed all of my previous comments. Therefore, the manuscript must be accepted for publication. Congratulations. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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 #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes:** Diogo S. Teixeira https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263408.r003
Formally Accepted
25 Jan 2022 Acceptance Letter - Claudio Imperatori, Editor PONE-D-21-31186R1 Sport psychology and performance meta-analyses: A systematic review of the literature Dear Dr. Lochbaum: 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. Claudio Imperatori Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263408.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .