Analyzing a sport for development program’s logic model by using key actors’ perceptions: The case of Pour 3 Points organization in Montreal

Tegwen Gadais; Mariann Bardocz-Bencsik

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267785

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 2, 2021
5 Oct 2021 Decision Letter - Ahmed Mancy Mosa, Editor PONE-D-21-03672Analyzing a SDP program’s logic model with key actors’ perceptions The case of Pour 3 Points organization in Montreal.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gadais, 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 consider all comments Please submit your revised manuscript by 13 Sepetember 2021. 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: http://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, Ahmed Mancy Mosa, 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 2. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files 3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 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: No ****** 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: Firstly, congratulations to the authors on a worthy piece of research focussing on often overlooked process of evaluation with SfD. See below for some specific and general comments. Line 63 – Please clarify what you mean by acclaimed programmes and why this is negative. This term on its own does not clearly portray the issue within the cited paper. (11) Line 116 – More detail required on what P3P actually delivers and what their implementation looks like in terms of the types of training they deliver, how this training is used within schools, does it have a timescale, is it only a training programme or does it provide more structure within the schools? I was still unclear by end of paper what the P3P model looked like, and it is discussed in very general terms. Example trainings or activities would be beneficial (can be included within Appendix if word count is an issue). Line 181 – What kind of coding utilised? Line -209 – Touched upon here but would like to see more detail around reflexive practices carried out among the research team. Giving an example of bracketing process used may help. Line 214 – More detail around field notes, what they consisted of and their purpose within rigour of study would be beneficial. Line 228 – Personally I would like the theme school problems to be a bit more descriptive, when I hear the term I think of problems with the school structurally whereas the description breakdown looks more at personal challenges faced by young people at school. Line 465 – o to or typo General Comments The aims of the study focus on assessment of a logic model however there are many parts of discussion (and abstract) lean into impact. The study is not designed to explore effectiveness of associated impact, nor would this be an appropriate study design to do so, however some claims ‘Positive changes with good potential to be sustained in the longterm’ do make such claims. Please review language around such comments noting these are perceptions of involved stakeholders. Later mention of need to continue work with participants, parents etc does acknowledge this but review language to avoid confusion. Secondly, I agree with your recommendations around the need for clarification around multiple aspects of the logic model and its implementation. A logic model can be fit for purpose but if it is misunderstood or incorrectly implemented it is of little practical use. There could be stronger language around how ill-defined key components of the programme appeared to be for participants within your data. For example, the discrepancy as to what the intended impact of the programme is constitutes a huge problem. As you highlight in the introduction the development outcomes need to be prioritised within SfD and a lack of clarity around them is a huge flaw within programming. I understand the need for sensitivity with partner organisations, but this is the purpose of this study and without such clarity future aims around effectiveness evaluation cannot occur. These recommendations exist within Table 2 but the importance/strength of these recommendations is not always mirrored in the discussion. These can be strengthened while still celebrating P3P for their willingness to engage with independent researchers to explore their intervention. Reviewer #2: This is a well written and organised paper, with a coherent narrative and argument, and which moves towards enhancing our knowledge of the use of logic models in the Sport for Development field. I have only a few suggested issues for the authors to consider: - There could be a more rigorous discussion of the role of logic models in both the realm of sport (not just SfD) and the realm of social intervention (social work, community work, development work). SfD sits at the intersection of these two realms, so there needs to be some consideration of where logic models fit in, in these respective fields. - Some justification of the focus on logic models compared to ‘theories of change’ should be given. The latter tend to be more prominent in SfD agencies and programs, so why focus on the former here? - I’m surprised that there is not more discussion of Coalter’s work with respect to the critical evaluation of SfD programs. Coalter’s recent work on program theory may be particularly salient here. - The paper could and should respond more adequately in the conclusion to the routine ‘so what?’ question. There should be greater consideration of what these findings may mean for future research and studies, as well as practice, in the SfD field, and also, perhaps more importantly, for researchers in broader fields in sport or community/social development or youth work. These latter points are especially relevant given the audience of the journal, which is far wider than the sports studies field. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267785.r001
Revision 1
7 Feb 2022 Author Response REVIEWER 1 COMMENTS RESPONSES TO REVIEWERS Reviewer #1: Firstly, congratulations to the authors on a worthy piece of research focussing on often overlooked process of evaluation with SfD. See below for some specific and general comments. Thanks for your kind comments. Line 63 – Please clarify what you mean by acclaimed programmes and why this is negative. This term on its own does not clearly portray the issue within the cited paper. (11) Please note that Levermore stated these 3 limits in his review of the literature concerning SDP, we just referenced their study. The author referred to the idea that only well know programs of SDP are evaluated through a rigorous process of evaluation because organisation have resources to do so. We now made a few modifications in the text concerning this point (l.64-65). Line 116 – More detail required on what P3P actually delivers and what their implementation looks like in terms of the types of training they deliver, how this training is used within schools, does it have a timescale, is it only a training programme or does it provide more structure within the schools? I was still unclear by end of paper what the P3P model looked like, and it is discussed in very general terms. Example trainings or activities would be beneficial (can be included within Appendix if word count is an issue). Details of the program are mentioned on page l.140-143 (Each year, the program recruited approximately 15 coaches. Throughout their enrolment in the program, the coaches participated in a four-day training retreat, five peer discussion circles, five formal trainings sessions, and three personal evaluations each year). We added Appendix A and the organisation’s website site, which describes the present program and its schedule. Line 181 – What kind of coding utilised? Coding was conducted following deductive (preestablish with elements of the logical model) and inductive processes based on Paillé & Mucchielli (2021) conceptual categories. After reading the verbatim, content was placed into groups of ideas and subgroups. We made modifications in the text concerning this point L.234-239. Line -209 – Touched upon here but would like to see more detail around reflexive practices carried out among the research team. Giving an example of bracketing process used may help. This comment is relevant, and we now provide details on this aspect. Modifications were made in the text (l.227-231). We hope that our response address’ your comment. Line 214 – More detail around field notes, what they consisted of and their purpose within rigour of study would be beneficial. We added some details and a reference about the field notes, we hope the rigour is better now. (l.232) Line 228 – Personally I would like the theme school problems to be a bit more descriptive, when I hear the term I think of problems with the school structurally whereas the description breakdown looks more at personal challenges faced by young people at school. Thanks for this comment. We now give details about it (see table 1). Line 465 – o to or typo We made the change. General Comments The aims of the study focus on assessment of a logic model however there are many parts of discussion (and abstract) lean into impact. The study is not designed to explore effectiveness of associated impact, nor would this be an appropriate study design to do so, however some claims ‘Positive changes with good potential to be sustained in the longterm’ do make such claims. Please review language around such comments noting these are perceptions of involved stakeholders. Later mention of need to continue work with participants, parents etc does acknowledge this but review language to avoid confusion. Thanks for your comments. You perfectly understand what the aim of this study is and what we intend to do. Following your comments, we decided to elaborate more on the impact of our study in the discussion and the abstract. Also, we change some inappropriate claims along the text about exploring the effectiveness of the associated impacts. Secondly, I agree with your recommendations around the need for clarification around multiple aspects of the logic model and its implementation. A logic model can be fit for purpose but if it is misunderstood or incorrectly implemented it is of little practical use. There could be stronger language around how ill-defined key components of the programme appeared to be for participants within your data. For example, the discrepancy as to what the intended impact of the programme is constitutes a huge problem. As you highlight in the introduction the development outcomes need to be prioritised within SfD and a lack of clarity around them is a huge flaw within programming. I understand the need for sensitivity with partner organisations, but this is the purpose of this study and without such clarity future aims around effectiveness evaluation cannot occur. These recommendations exist within Table 2 but the importance/strength of these recommendations is not always mirrored in the discussion. These can be strengthened while still celebrating P3P for their willingness to engage with independent researchers to explore their intervention. Thanks also for this valuable comment. We added some explanations and a few sentences in the discussion section to address these points. See p.18, l.548-589. REVIEWER 2 RESPONSES TO REVIEWERS COMMENTS RESPONSES TO REVIEWER 2 This is a well written and organised paper, with a coherent narrative and argument, and which moves towards enhancing our knowledge of the use of logic models in the Sport for Development field. Thanks for your comments, there are very appreciated! You perfectly understand what is the aim of this study and what we intended to do. I have only a few suggested issues for the authors to consider: - There could be a more rigorous discussion of the role of logic models in both the realm of sport (not just SfD) and the realm of social intervention (social work, community work, development work). SfD sits at the intersection of these two realms, so there needs to be some consideration of where logic models fit in, in these respective fields. We added a few sentences on this point. See p.19-20, l.548-589. - Some justification of the focus on logic models compared to ‘theories of change’ should be given. The latter tend to be more prominent in SfD agencies and programs, so why focus on the former here? We added some elements to explain this point. See p.4 l.101-112 in the introduction. - I’m surprised that there is not more discussion of Coalter’s work with respect to the critical evaluation of SfD programs. Coalter’s recent work on program theory may be particularly salient here. Thanks for your comment, we tried to rearrange this part following your proposition. We introduced his works (p.3, l.74-76, l.105) and we discussed Coalter’s work in the discussion section, quoting your recommendation (p.18, l.548-564). We consider your suggestion regarding Coalter’s recent work (Fred Coalter, Marc Theeboom & Jasper Truyens (2020) Developing a programme theory for sport and employability programmes for NEETs, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 12:4, 679-697, DOI:10.1080/19406940.2020.1832136) on the program theory not perfectly fitting the content of our manuscript. We are already citing references quotes by Coalter (2020): Weiss 1995, 1998 and Pawson and Tilley 2004. - The paper could and should respond more adequately in the conclusion to the routine ‘so what?’ question. There should be greater consideration of what these findings may mean for future research and studies, as well as practice, in the SfD field, and also, perhaps more importantly, for researchers in broader fields in sport or community/social development or youth work. These latter points are especially relevant given the audience of the journal, which is far wider than the sports studies field. Thanks for your comment, we tried to rearrange this part following your proposition. See p.19-20 et l.574-589. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Evaluation PlosOne P3P round 1 TG VF 19 11 2021.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267785.r002
21 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Ahmed Mancy Mosa, Editor PONE-D-21-03672R1Analyzing a SDP program’s logic model with key actors’ perceptions The case of Pour 3 Points organization in Montreal.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gadais, 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 consider all comments Please submit your revised manuscript by May 05 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, Ahmed Mancy Mosa, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. 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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 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: 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 ****** 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: I thank the authors for their clear responses to previous comments. See below for remaining minor recommendations. Language Review language throughout, some long sentences could do with breaking up for clarity. Specific lines highlighted for review of sense/clarity: Line 86 review use of term ‘real’ what is meant by this Line 90-91 starting 'This literature review,' review for clarity Line 108-110 starting 'Ridde and Dagenais,' review for clarity Line 568-570 starting 'It could be considered,' review for clarity Line 587-589 starting 'In reality, those,' review for clarity Throughout paper remove use of 1st person (‘we’, ‘our’). Currently mixes 1st and 3rd person references to authors. Consistent use of 3rd person (such as ‘the authors’ or ‘the research team’) preferred. Content Line 221 clarify if interviews totalled 60mins or were on average 60mins each Line 254, include your definition of bracketing as it has been utilised in varied manners across different forms of Qual research. Line 259 onwards, good inclusion of positionality and background. A line about different contributors’ backgrounds professionally (relevant professional experiences and paradigms of interest) would further strengthen this section. Language around impact much better but would suggest a final check on all language to ensure nothing could read as having been objectively measured. Example line 640 Findings reveal also that the program is successful for all key actors should be changed to Findings reveal also that the program is perceived as successful for all key actors. Such simple changes prevent any misinterpretation of impact findings. Pending the above minor changes and a thorough spelling/grammar proof this paper should be ready for publication and prove a valuable addition to wider literature. ****** 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 [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.0267785.r003
Revision 2
2 Apr 2022 Author Response PONE-D-21-03672 Analyzing a SDP program’s logic model with key actors’ perceptions The case of Pour 3 Points organization in Montreal. PLOS ONE REVIEWER 1 COMMENTS RESPONSES TO REVIEWERS Reviewer #1: I thank the authors for their clear responses to previous comments. See below for remaining minor recommendations. Thanks for your kind comments. Language Review language throughout, some long sentences could do with breaking up for clarity. Specific lines highlighted for review of sense/clarity: Line 86 review use of term ‘real’ what is meant by this Line 90-91 starting 'This literature review,' review for clarity Line 108-110 starting 'Ridde and Dagenais,' review for clarity Line 568-570 starting 'It could be considered,' review for clarity Line 587-589 starting 'In reality, those,' review for clarity We made the changes l.78 we erased “real” l.82 we erased “review” l.100 we keep the sentences as it stands because we mentioned authors point of view. l.558 we keep the sentences as it stands. This is exactly the idea we want to focus on. l.577 we erased “in reality” Throughout paper remove use of 1st person (‘we’, ‘our’). Currently mixes 1st and 3rd person references to authors. Consistent use of 3rd person (such as ‘the authors’ or ‘the research team’) preferred. We made all the changes Content Line 221 clarify if interviews totalled 60mins or were on average 60mins each We made the clarification Line 254, include your definition of bracketing as it has been utilised in varied manners across different forms of Qual research. l. 247 We included our definition as you suggested Line 259 onwards, good inclusion of positionality and background. A line about different contributors’ backgrounds professionally (relevant professional experiences and paradigms of interest) would further strengthen this section. L. 255 We added some elements regarding your comment. Language around impact much better but would suggest a final check on all language to ensure nothing could read as having been objectively measured. Example line 640 Findings reveal also that the program is successful for all key actors should be changed to Findings reveal also that the program is perceived as successful for all key actors. Such simple changes prevent any misinterpretation of impact findings. Thanks for this relevant comment. We did a deep modification of those aspects inside the text. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers PlosOne P3P round 2 TG 23 03 2022.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267785.r004
18 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Ahmed Mancy Mosa, Editor Analyzing a Sport For Development program’s logic model with key actors’ perceptions The case of Pour 3 Points organization in Montreal. PONE-D-21-03672R2 Dear Dr. Gadais, 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, Ahmed Mancy Mosa, 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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 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: 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 ****** 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 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267785.r005
Formally Accepted
3 May 2022 Acceptance Letter - Ahmed Mancy Mosa, Editor PONE-D-21-03672R2 Analyzing a Sport for Development program’s logic model by using key actors’ perceptions: The case of Pour 3 Points organization in Montreal. Dear Dr. Gadais: 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. Ahmed Mancy Mosa Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267785.r006

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 .