PONE-D-24-17887Factors Influencing Talent Development and Athletic Performance Among Saudi Arabia's Twice-Exceptional Elite Athletes: A Comprehensive StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hassan,

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR

The reviewers acknowledged the potential contribution that this manuscript could make to the existing literature. Nevertheless, the reviewers expressed their concerns about the quality of this manuscript in its current state. The manuscript needs to be developed further before it can be considered publishable. It is encouraged that the author(s) take the reviewers' comments into consideration and revise this manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 07 2024 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 to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols 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. 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,

Tien-Chin Tan, 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. 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 in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "In The authors extend their appreciation to the King Salman center For Disability Research for funding this work through Research Group no KSRG-2022-090."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: "All relevant data is within the manuscript and its supporting information files."

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

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: Partly

**********

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: 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: It is academically and practically beneficial to explore the developmental elements of internal and external influences on this group of twice-exceptional elite athletes. However, there are still several significant issues to consider and clarify. The title, purpose, and content of the article should be consistent, relevant literature should be augmented, the framework for the analysis should be clarified, the interviewees and data collection should be clarified, and the findings and discussion should be reconsidered. These issues have resulted in the current study's conclusions being only partially supported. Additionally, the entire article has a number of formal problems that need to be addressed. These issues and problems have had a significant impact on the overall quality of the current study. Please consider the following suggestions before submitting the article to relevant journals.

Introduction

1. In the title of this paper, the authors state that they investigate the factors influencing the development of talent and performance among elite twice-exceptional athletes. This is inconsistent with the research objective, “This study investigates the internal and external factors influencing the development of athletic talent among elite twice-exceptional athletes” as stated in lines 85-86. Moreover, the authors did not present an analysis of the factors influencing elite twice-exceptional athletes' performance. Therefore, the authors need to pay more attention to the study title, purpose, and content consistency.

2. The authors’ review of existing literature on the factors influencing the development of athletes in competitive sports, or on the factors affecting the development of elite twice-exceptional athletes, is not sufficient and comprehensive. The current authors’ review of relevant previous studies discusses factors at the individual and environmental levels. However, previous studies such as De Bosscher et al. (2006) mentioned that the factors affecting athletic talents development and performance can be categorized into micro, meso, and macro levels. Therefore, the authors may need to refer to De Bosscher et al. (2006) and related previous studies to reorganize the review of related studies.

� Veerle De Bosscher, Paul De Knop, Maarten Van Bottenburg & Simon Shibli (2006). A Conceptual Framework for Analysing Sports Policy Factors Leading to International Sporting Success, European Sport Management Quarterly, 6:2, 185- 215, DOI: 10.1080/16184740600955087

Materials and Methods

1. The authors’ description of the respondents in Table 1 allows readers to understand the respondents' composition. However, this section should generally include the respondent's code number, interview date, and their characteristics, such as disabilities classification, specialty sports items, and sports performance. By doing so, readers will be able to better comprehend the source of evidence. This in turn should provide a more convincing picture of the findings.

2. In lines 194-196, the authors state that “the integration of peer review and synthesis further strengthened the analytical process, enhancing the credibility and impact of the research outcomes suitable for publication in high-impact international scientific journals”. However, it seems arbitrary for the authors to assert that their research outcomes are suitable for publication in high-impact scientific journals. Researchers should focus on explaining how their research has enhanced data credibility.

3. In lines 163-167, the authors mention that interview data were collected from 21 respondents on 1 January 2023. The authors state that these interviews add up to 26 hours of documentation. However, due to the relatively large number of 21 respondents, this seems difficult to achieve with only one researcher in a day. It may be necessary for the authors to clarify how interview data were collected, e.g., were the interview data collected on the same day by different researchers?

Results

1. In line 206, the authors mention “Identifying the Identity of Twice-Exceptional Elite Athletes: A Mega Mode Approach”, but then go on to say that “This framework categorizes these factors into internal and external components, both of which are integral to motivating individuals toward achieving excellence.” The authors need to clarify whether or not the concept of identity is an external component.

2. In lines 206-239, the authors mention the mega mode approach as the analytical framework for the study. However, the authors did not explain the approach in the article introduction or in the methodology section. It is recommended that the authors include the approach in the literature review. This includes how it has been used in existing studies and how it was used in this study to analyze the findings. As a result, the discussion section will be more able to reflect on and comment on the approach's applicability.

3. The authors mention in lines 225-226 that “Despite the diversity in participants’ disabilities and levels of athletic excellence, our study revealed striking similarities in the experiences of elite athletes”. However, there may be a misunderstanding in the current authors’ generalization of the influencing factors derived from all the respondents. For example, these subjects came from different sports and may be consistent in internal influences. However, they may show a higher degree of variation in external factors. Therefore, a comparative analysis of respondents with varying background conditions should be presented in the findings section. In addition, the research methodology should be categorized according to the different characteristics of respondents.

4. The authors asked the interviewees to describe their experiences of outstanding athletic performance. From this, the authors extracted the influencing factors and attempt to present the relationships between the factors. Due to the small sample size, the authors will have to clarify the relationship of the factors between each other carefully. For example, does “Perseverance” also affect “Desire for Self-assertion”? Therefore, it is suggested that the authors focus on the induction of the influencing factors rather than the relationship between the factors.

Discussion

1. The authors describe, in lines 415-418, “Given the diverse experiences of the participants within the twice-exceptional category, we conducted comparative analyses to benchmark their actions’ efficacy and their influence on developmental trajectories under varying circumstances, contrasting ideal conditions with those lacking such support”. However, the results of the comparative analyses were not found in the study findings. This section also responds to the question in the findings section whether comparative analyses of data from respondents with different background conditions should be presented first. It is therefore suggested that the authors should revise their discussion to be more in line with the study findings.

2. The current discussion by the authors takes place at the same time when the research findings are in dialogue with previous literature or theoretical applications, e.g. lines 425-444. Apart from the fact that readers may get lost easier in a large amount of text, the discussion of the research findings and previous related studies seems incomplete. Therefore, it is suggested that the authors move the discussion of the findings of internal and external factors in the Results section, such as the similar content in lines 367-375, to the Discussion section for a more comprehensive discussion, as well as discussing them according to the themes, which may make it easier for readers to understand the themes that the authors would like to focus on.

Problems with Article Format

1. What is the keyword 6.?

2. Missing spelling, e.g., line 68 "familial"; line 376 "his factor"; Table 2 title “Environmental Facto”.

3. Names and dates of people appear in internal citations, e.g., lines 211-214 and 215-217.

4. Why do the external components in line 215 appear in bold, but the internal components in line 211 do not?

5. Lines 248-249 repeat the phrase "with unique abilities and challenges”.

6. The font size is inconsistent in many places throughout the text, e.g., in the introduction and lines 152-153, Table 1, etc. 7. The age group in Table 1 contradicts the font size.

7. In Table 1, there should be no brackets around the age group.

8. In Table 1, there should be no need to add punctuation marks for the sports items above Shot put.

9. Figure 2 is quite blurry and the font size is small.

10. The spacing between paragraphs is inconsistent.

11. References section lacks a more carefully compiled list, e.g. lines 527, 534, 554.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript examines the factors affecting talent development and athletic performance among Saudi Arabia's Twice-Exceptional Athletes, focusing on both internal psychological factors and external environmental influences. The study is underpinned by qualitative interviews and explores how these factors contribute to success at regional and international Paralympic competitions across various sports and regions within the Kingdom.

The selection of the sample and variables could be enhanced by including education level and profession as indicators of financial support and self-funding. This addition is particularly relevant given the disparities in financial backing and media coverage between Paralympic sports and other athletic disciplines. Moreover, the paper would benefit from a deeper contextualization within the current sports policy framework in Saudi Arabia, especially concerning disability and Paralympic sports. This should encompass aspects like financial support, dual careers, and access to facilities.

The discussion on regional discrepancies in success factors for the studied population is somewhat generic. A more detailed examination of specific cities that provide optimal conditions for these athletes would add value. Furthermore, the gender dimension warrants more comprehensive analysis and discussion.

There are also several stylistic concerns that require the authors' attention:

Ensure font consistency throughout the document. For example, the font in Table 2 differs from the rest of the paper.

Standardize table formatting to enhance readability, applying the style used in Table 1 to all subsequent tables.

Correct typographical errors, such as the one on line 367; it should read "this factor" instead of "his factor

**********

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.

PONE-D-24-17887R1

The internal and external factors influencing Talent Development of athletic talent Among Saudi Arabia's Twice Exceptional Elite Athletes: A Comprehensive Study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr.  Hassan,

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 Nov 28 2024 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,

Tien-Chin Tan, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

According to the reviewers, this manuscript may contribute to the literature to some extent. Nonetheless, the reviewers expressed reservations about the quality of this manuscript in its current form, particularly with regard to the methodology. There is still work to be done before the manuscript can be considered publishable. Our suggestion is that the author(s) heed the reviewers' comments and revise the manuscript accordingly as a result.

[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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (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 #1: Partly

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: 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: Greetings, authors,

Thank you for modifying and responding to our suggestions. Overall, the quality of the current study has improved. However, there are still a few points to consider and clarify. Here are some suggestions to consider before submitting the article to a journal.

Materials and Methods

1. Although the authors responded, "All requirements have been added to Table (1)", when reviewing Table 1, we cannot identify the respondent code, the respondent's disability classification, and the sport he/she plays. As an aside, the document currently has two Tables 1.

2. The author responds by saying, "The following passage has been added to clarify the validity of the interviews and qualitative data analysis.". It is in line with our recommendation. A review of the authors' manuscript, however, does not indicate that it has been added.

3. Also, although the authors responded to our suggestions, they did not include this information in their section on data collection.

Results

1. In line 206, the authors mention “Identifying the Identity of Twice-Exceptional Elite Athletes: A Mega Mode Approach”, but then go on to say that “This framework categorizes these factors into internal and external components, both of which are integral to motivating individuals toward achieving excellence”. In psychology, identity refers to traits, beliefs, personalities, appearances, and/or expressions that define a person or group. Therefore, it should be an internal component. In this context, it might be more appropriate for the author to use the term "influencing factors" rather than "identity."

2. In table 2, there are still no changes that would respond to our previous suggestions regarding the presentation of "The comparative analysis of external factors".

3. Only one change has been made to the separation of the findings from the discussion of previous studies. It is necessary to make many other adjustments, such as in lines 264-266.

Problems with Article Format

Throughout the article, there are several formal errors that need to be corrected by the author. The following is just a list of cases, and authors are encouraged to check each one throughout the text.

1. There is no space before [13] on line 52.

2. There is a need to clarify line 91.

3. There is a difference in font size between line 203 "Results" and other headings of the same level.

4. There is a need to adjust the distance between the lines on lines 318-319.

5. There is an inconsistency in the font size for Line 320.

6. The following lines are garbled: 523, 652, 717, 726.

Reviewer #3: I have the impression that the author(s) pointed out that interview data were collected from 21 respondents on 1 January 2023. And 26 hours of documentation......It is crucial to convince the reviewers that your data colletion process is scientific and trustful. Moreover, the author(s) need to re-frame the method section:

• who was to be studied and why;

• how respondents were recruited;

• the semi-structured interviewing approach;

• the number of people interviewed and the context in which the interviews took place;

• the approach to analysing the interview transcripts (thematic analysis).

**********

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 #3: 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: Review Comments.docx

PONE-D-24-17887R2The internal and external factors influencing Talent Development of athletic talent Among Saudi Arabia's Twice Exceptional Elite Athletes: A Comprehensive StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hassan,

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 05 2025 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,

Tien-Chin Tan, 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thanks for revising the original manuscript. In the revised manuscript, there have been improvements. Although enhancements have been made, reviewers remain concerned about certain issues. Please make an adjustment or provide clarification to clarify the reviewers' concerns. The manuscript can be accepted after a few minor revisions. Looking forward to receiving the further revised version.

[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

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: Yes

********** 

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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: Dear authors,

Thank you for accepting our change suggestions and promptly submitting a corrected version. However, after re-examining the revised article, there are still some areas to be corrected.

Materials and methods

1. The authors have added Table 1 to the revised version of the article to show the Participant Distribution. This allows readers to understand the respondents' attributes. However, in general, the authors will point out the location of the table and explain the meaning of the table in the text.

Results

1. Lines 378-403, both paragraphs are identical.

Discussion

1. lines 542-544, there is a problem with the subparagraphs. 2.

2. Suggest that the author use a topic-based presentation in the discussion section to make it easier for the reader to understand what the author is trying to discuss.

Problems with the Article Format

1. On line 119, citation formatting should be standardized. In every section of the article, fonts should be used.

2. It would be helpful if you standardized the font and font size throughout the article.

3. On lines 538 and 546, please delete the extra parentheses.

Reviewer #3: All of my concerns surrounding the data collection and analysis have been solved. Well done! Now, I would say that it is a nice qualitative research paper.

********** 

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 #3: 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.

The internal and external factors influencing Talent Development of athletic talent Among Saudi Arabia's Twice Exceptional Elite Athletes: A Comprehensive Study

PONE-D-24-17887R3

Dear Dr. Mohamed Dahy Hassan,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Tien-Chin Tan, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I would like to congratulate the authors for the diligent work they put into revising this manuscript. All comments and suggestions received during the revision process have been successfully incorporated. Congratulations.

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: 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: 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: Dear author, greetings.

Thank you to the author group for accepting our suggestions and correcting the manuscript. The manuscript still has a few formatting errors, but they did not interfere with the reading fluency. Additionally, the overall content has been clarified. Therefore, we do not have any additional revision suggestions. My sincere congratulations.

**********

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

**********