PONE-D-21-38970Elite Athletes' Lifestyles: Consumerism to ProfessionalismPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ehsan Mohamadi Turkmani,

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 Mar 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,

Rogis Baker, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Please remove all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. 

Note: spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

[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: Partly

**********

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: Thank you for your invitation to this research.

First of all, congratulations to the authors. The research idea and design is nice. The research design looks good.

Introduction, method, statistical analysis and discussion of the findings in the research were done very well. The results of the research provide an innovative perspective by contributing to the literature.

I think that the quality and content of the pictures in the text should be improved.

Reviewer #2: Thank you to the author(s) for submitting their manuscript to the Plos One Journal. Please see the page-by-page comments below. There seemed to be a couple of main issues that, if addressed, I think would enhance the research. For one, I question the need and purpose of the paper in relation to theoretical and practical implications of the research. That is, why there is a need to study lifestyles, what problem does it help with better understanding, and how the knowledge will be used and by who. Additionally, I believe the theoretical rationale for why the reviewed theories were not used, can be strengthened. I hope the author(s) are able to reflect on the comments and feedback in their future iterations of their paper.

Page 6: Paragraph above table 1: Could the author(s) also unfold concisely the studies that have used athletes and what to further explore in this research that the current paper/research addresses?

Page 7: It is believed paragraph: In another set of studies sentence and the remaining components of this paragraph: See previous comment as it seems here the athlete studies are being addressed. Could the author(s)articulate and strengthen the differentiation or distinction between the points in the paragraph above the table and the research included below?

Page 8: So far paragraph: Therefore, if lifestyle: The research prior could be better organized and tighter around these points. As such, was the health orientated lifestyle addressed.

Page 8: I am still unclear on how the reviewed theories could not be used to comprehensively explore the different aspects of their life—on and off the field. I think this rationale can be strengthened. As a suggestion, the author(s) might add a bit more of a critique in the beginning aspects of the paper where the theories are reviewed.

Page 9-11: Methods: could the author(s) highlight their epistemological and ontological assumptions/paradigmatic of their research.

Page 13: The components of the findings here might be better served as data collection and analysis procedures sections within the methods. Further, an added component on quality research standards would be appropriate.

Smith, B., & McGannon, K. R. (2018). Developing rigor in qualitative research: Problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 101-212.

Smith, B., Sparkes, A., & Caddick, N. (2014). Judging qualitative research. In L. Nelson, R. Groom, & P. Potrac (Eds.), Research methods in sports coaching (pp. 192–202). Routledge.

Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2014). Qualitative research methods in sport, exercise and health: From process to product. Routledge.

Page 14: There is a need to organize and describe these codes across the participants. Descriptions in what their deeper meaning are into a coherent description of the groups of open coding would be useful. See previous comment as it may open space for this.

Page 15: How were the codes/groupings in phase one used or informs phases 2?

Page 17: Style 2: Individuals in this group: Individuals in this group seem to lend itself to the idea that only part of athletes discussed this component. But, couldn’t there be integration across these themes/styles that could be involved in different aspects of the life, for different things, etc. Please clarify.

Page 19: Discussion: Some of the key points seem to run together in the discussion. Further, it would be useful to compare and contrast the theory generated from the research and Bourdieu. Some of the discussion involves articulating Bourdieu’s theory in relation to the findings, without as much consideration for the theory generated from the research. Based on this, I again, question, why couldn’t Bourdieu have been used in this research as I had indicated in a couple of other comments. Nonetheless, it would be useful to critique and compare and contrast Bourdieu to the findings. A final recommendation would be to include practical implications of the research findings. That is, who does the knowledge from this research address, what problem does it help solve or gain a better understanding towards, and how does this knowledge get used in practical application. Perhaps, there could be some indication of this in the introduction section from which the discussion would tie together in response the new knowledge generated from the findings.

**********

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: Yes: Zeki AKYILDIZ

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Elite Athletes Lifestyles Consumerism to Professionalism.docx

Elite Athletes' Lifestyles: Consumerism to Professionalism

PONE-D-21-38970R1

Dear Dr. Ehsan Mohamadi Turkmani,

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,

Rogis Baker, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: