https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5751-0250
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionNovember 24, 2022 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-22-32398An analysis of the leverage effect of “Internet +” on the economic spillover of sports industryPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yi, 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 Feb 11 2023 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:
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, Uzair Aslam Bhatti 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 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "The author(s) received no specific funding for this work" 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. 4. 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. 5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. Additional Editor Comments: Based on reviewer suggestion my decision is major revision. [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: The author explores the leverage effect of economic spillover of sports industry in the context of “Internet +”, examines the dynamic impact of “Internet +” on the economic spillover of sports industry through empirical research. Although the paper provide significant knowledge, however i have following concern in the paper. 1- The novelty of the paper is not validated by the authors. The paper should include a section in the introduction about the contribution of the paper as well as update the abstract. 2- The related work does not support the problem identified in this study. There should be citations for the statistical figures reported in the paper. This literature review should include recent citations from 2020, 2021, and 2022. >https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12101338 >https://doi.org/10.1109/CSDE50874.2020.9411587 >https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECube53880.2021.9628315 >https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/142146 >https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.945628 >https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084312 3- The authors should consider the comparison of various existing studies in tabular form to validate the missing gap. 4- The author should provide an analysis of the proposed study. Analyses can be based on the same methods as the above papers. 5- Using benchmarks defined in relevant research, the author should consider a one-to-one comparison of the existing model and the proposed model. 6- The author should identify future research directions. Reviewer #2: The study investigated the leverage effect of “Internet +” on the economic spillover of sports industry. The research design and methodology are proper. However, I think the introduction and discussion should be restructured and largely rewritten. Keywords: Please add keywords. Introduction Please add references in the first few lines of the 1st paragraph. Please clearly mention the uniqueness of your study in the first paragraph. The 1st paragraph is extra large I suggest to split into two paragraphs and make it logical. Discussion Compare your result with previous similar studies. Please mention future work in the conclusion. Please add the conclusion part. Reference Please add the latest reference, especially the paper published in the last five years. ********** 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: Mir Muhammad Nizamani ********** [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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-22-32398R1An analysis of the leverage effect of “Internet +” on the economic spillover of sports industryPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yi, 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. You can see that the reviewers have now reevaluated your research work and they have suggested some minor comments to improve the quality of the manuscript. Therefore, you are now directed to incorporate these changes and submit the revised version, along with point-by-point responses to reviewers' comments, within the due date. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 23 2023 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:
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, Shujahat Haider Hashmi, PhD Regional Economics 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. Additional Editor Comments: The reviewers have now reevaluated your research work and they have suggested some minor comments to improve the quality of the manuscript. You are now directed to incorporate these changes and submit the revised version within the due date. [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 #3: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #5: (No Response) ********** 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 Reviewer #5: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: 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 Reviewer #5: 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 Reviewer #5: 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: Thank you for considering given comments seriously and providing response comprehensively. However this may add an ice to the cake if you make following changes/additions. • Add a small paragraph at the end of introduction section and provide key findings. • Also add the structure of paper soon after providing key findings. • Adjust table 05 properly Good luck. Reviewer #4: I have reviewed the manuscript, comments, and responses, and while I find them satisfactory, I have a few suggestions to improve the clarity and coherence of the text. Firstly, I noticed that the title suggests that "economic spillover" is the dependent variable (DV), as indicated by the keywords. However, the authors switch between the terms "economic development" and "economic growth", which have distinct meanings and measures and are not necessarily proxies for economic spillover. Therefore, I would recommend that the authors clarify and be consistent about what they are analyzing as the DV, and ensure that it is clearly stated in the title, keywords, and throughout the text. Secondly, I would suggest that the authors consider adding a brief paragraph or two in the introduction section to summarize the policy implications and key results of their study. This would provide readers with a clear understanding of the potential real-world applications of the research and help to contextualize the findings. Overall, these suggestions would help to improve the clarity and coherence of the manuscript, and ensure that readers have a clear understanding of the research aims and implications. Reviewer #5: Abstract 1. The Abstract is the “Face” of the study, it must be high quality and informative. The abstract should be very specific to the aims, methodology, findings, and implications. Please focus the abstract on your study objectives and results. Results should be supported by their significance. Study implications should be discussed and based on the results. Introduction 1. The paper lacks arguments on how and in what aspects it contributes to the literature. Objectives of the paper needs to be linked to the literature to identify how this paper is different than the previous ones and how it contributes to the literature on leverage effect of “Internet +” on the economic spillover of sports industry. 2. Justification of the topic is too weak, and not supported by the strong empirical work. 3. The author did not mention clearly about his/her contribution of the study, which should be included at the end of the introduction. Literature review 1. A good literature review is included in the paper, but still no arguments can be seen in the selection of the study variables, theorization part in the literature review is weak. 2. More contextual review should be included. Methodology 1. Why author has selected time period from 2015-2019? Provide rational for it. 2. Hanse’s panel threshold regression model is used for the study analysis, no argumentation/healthy discussion is provided about the suitability of this regression model. 3. Operationalization of the variables may be provided in tabular form. Results 1. The author must provide the rationale for choosing the control variables such as Urbanization and trade. 2. The assumptions of Hanse’s model are not tested. 3. Results of the model are only discussed statistically but not supported by the previous literature. 4. The discussion is not based on latest literature. Support your discussion with recent literature. 5. In summarizing your conclusion and discussion interpret your hypotheses and problem statement with evidence from your literature review section and give logical reasoning that what you have claimed is in fact true. 6. The limitations and policy implications should be discussed in the conclusion section. ********** 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 Reviewer #5: 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.
|
| Revision 2 |
|
An analysis of the leverage effect of “Internet +” on the economic spillover of sports industry PONE-D-22-32398R2 Dear Dr. Yi, 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, Shujahat Haider Hashmi, PhD Regional Economics Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The reviewers have now thoroughly evaluated your resubmitted manuscript and have expressed due satisfaction with your revised work. Therefore, we feel great pleasure to inform you that your paper is now accepted for possible publication in the journal. We appreciate your continued efforts and patience to improve the quality of the manuscript. We wish you best of luck for your future endeavors. 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: (No Response) ********** 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: I have carefully reviewed the manuscript titled and would like to inform you that the authors have diligently incorporated all the comments and suggestions provided during the review process. I am pleased to see that they have taken the time to address the concerns raised and have made appropriate revisions throughout the paper. The authors have made substantial improvements to the clarity, methodology, and overall quality of the manuscript. Their responses to the reviewers' comments demonstrate their commitment to enhancing the research and ensuring its accuracy. I appreciate the thoroughness with which they have revised the manuscript, and I believe their efforts have significantly strengthened the paper. Based on the revised version, I am confident that the manuscript is now suitable for publication. The authors have adequately addressed all the issues raised during the review process, and the paper now meets the high standards expected by our journal. Thank you for considering my recommendation. I am available for any further clarification or discussion if needed. Reviewer #4: The revised version incorporates the suggested changes effectively, enhancing the overall clarity and coherence of the content. I am confident that the authors have carefully considered the comments and made appropriate adjustments, which have resulted in a more refined and satisfactory piece of work. ********** 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: Yes: Idrees Liaqat Reviewer #4: No ********** |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-22-32398R2 An analysis of the leverage effect of “Internet +” on the economic spillover of sports industry Dear Dr. Yi: 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. Shujahat Haider Hashmi Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .