PONE-D-24-49663The Relationship Between Physical Education Teachers' Capability Support and Middle School Students' Participation in Sports: A Chain Mediation Model of Perceived Capability and Exercise PersistencePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yan,

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 10 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,

Henri Tilga, PhD

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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: ● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript ● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file) ● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings 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. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The topic of the paper holds a certain degree of significance,and the overall design is relatively sound,employing appropriate research methodologies to address the research questions.The processing of quantitative data complies with relevant standards.However,the paper still presents the following issues:

• Pay attention to the accuracy of citations.

For example, the author said

Teacher support,an important external environmental factor widely advocated in self-determination theory,is generally considered from the perspective of students[6].

Self-determination theory has never emphasized teacher support;it has only highlighted the external environment.Teacher support is a significant part of the external environment.Therefore,when discussing this concept,it should be stated that teacher support,as an integral part of important social support or as a crucial environmental variable,plays a significant role in the development of students'capabilities.The author's current phrasing should be avoided,as there are many similar sentences throughout the text.

• The entire text must be polished,especially in terms of expression,where many parts can lead to ambiguity,as exemplified earlier.Additionally,there are traces of awkward translations from Chinese to English in several places.

• Sentences should generally not be too long.For instance,the first sentence of the abstract spans 4-5 lines,which could be broken down for clarity.

• Please carefully refer to high-level publications,such as quantitative research papers published in this journal,to revise the terminology throughout the paper.For example,the third section should be titled"Methodology,"and research tools should be referred to as"instruments"or"measures."

• Consistency is required when reporting data.For example,the chi-square and degrees of freedom ratio can be reported together,but the author uses separate expressions when reporting the KMO value corresponding to the chi-square degrees of freedom ratio for the teacher support dimension.

• The author should clearly explain the meaning of several core variables in the literature review,such as what constitutes teacher support and student ability.Additionally,"teacher support"should be referred to as"students'perceived teacher support,"as it is measured and perceived from the student's perspective.

• There should be a corresponding theoretical discussion on why the current topic is researched from a particular angle.

• The expression of the research gap is not particularly accurate,and there is a lack of effective discussion on the purpose of the research.

• Interdisciplinary research has certain guiding significance for this study;please refer to the following literature.

Liu, H., Li, X., & Y. Yan (2023) Demystifying the predictive role of students’ perceived foreign language teacher support in foreign language anxiety: the mediating role of L2 grit. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2023.2223171.

Liu, H. & Li, X. (2023). Unravelling students’ perceived EFL teacher support. System. 115, 103048, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103048.

Li, X., Duan, S., & Liu, H. (2023). Unveiling the predictive effect of students’ perceived EFL teacher support on academic achievement: The mediating role of academic buoyancy. Sustainability, 15, 10205. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310205

Please Note there is no relationship between my review and your citations of the above references.

Reviewer #2: Thank you to the editor for the opportunity to review this manuscript and to the authors for their diligent work on this important and timely topic. The study addresses an essential area of physical education by exploring how teacher support influences sports participation, mediated through perceived capability and exercise persistence. While the manuscript has notable strengths, I have some important comments that need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication.

INTRODUCTION

The introduction provides a solid rationale for the study by emphasizing the importance of physical education and teacher support in promoting sports participation. However, it could benefit from additional depth in certain areas:

1. The review of prior research is somewhat limited in scope, with insufficient discussion of studies from diverse cultural contexts or recent advances in the field.

2. The conceptual framework is introduced but could be better integrated with the study objectives and hypotheses.

Suggestions:

a. Broaden the literature review to include more diverse studies and recent developments in the role of teacher support in sports participation.

b. Strengthen the link between the conceptual framework and the stated hypotheses to clarify the study's novelty and theoretical contribution.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

The hypotheses are logical and supported by previous research, but the literature review lacks depth in exploring certain mediating mechanisms, particularly the interaction between perceived capability and exercise persistence.

Suggestions:

a. Expand the discussion of the chain mediation effect, providing more theoretical grounding for how perceived capability and exercise persistence jointly influence sports participation.

b. Ensure that all hypotheses are clearly tied to specific gaps in the literature to highlight their significance.

METHODS

The methodology is well-documented, with a clear description of the sampling procedure and the validated instruments used. However:

1. The sample is geographically restricted to one city in China, which limits the generalizability of findings.

2. The use of cross-sectional data limits causal inferences, a limitation that should be acknowledged in more detail.

Suggestions:

a. Acknowledge the geographic and demographic limitations of the sample and their implications for generalizability.

b. Discuss the limitations of cross-sectional design and suggest longitudinal or experimental approaches for future research.

RESULTS

The results are presented systematically, and the statistical analyses are robust. However:

1. The reporting of results could be streamlined to avoid redundancy, particularly in describing mediation effects.

2. The inclusion of visual aids (e.g., diagrams of mediation pathways) could enhance clarity.

Suggestions:

a. Consolidate the presentation of results to eliminate repetitive descriptions.

b. Use visuals to succinctly illustrate key findings, such as the mediation pathways and model fit indices.

DISCUSSION

The discussion effectively interprets the findings but could benefit from more focus and specificity:

1. The implications of the findings for educational practice are briefly mentioned but not fully developed.

2. Some sections reiterate results rather than offering deeper insights into their significance.

Suggestions:

a. Expand on the practical implications of the findings, particularly for teacher training and curriculum design.

b. Focus on critical insights and avoid restating results already presented.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion provides a succinct summary of the findings but could emphasize actionable recommendations more strongly.

Suggestions:

a. Include specific recommendations for physical education practices, such as strategies for enhancing teacher support and fostering student engagement in sports.

b. Highlight potential areas for future research, such as examining other mediators or exploring interventions in different cultural contexts.

LIMITATIONS

The study appropriately acknowledges some limitations but could delve deeper into others:

1. The geographic restriction of the sample and the cross-sectional design are significant constraints that should be discussed more comprehensively.

2. The potential influence of unmeasured variables, such as socioeconomic status or school-level factors, is not addressed.

Suggestions:

a. Expand on the limitations related to the study design and sample characteristics.

b. Suggest directions for future research, such as incorporating longitudinal designs or exploring additional influencing factors.

This manuscript makes a valuable contribution to understanding the role of teacher support in sports participation among middle school students. Addressing the outlined suggestions, such as enriching the literature review, refining the discussion, and emphasizing practical implications, will significantly enhance the clarity, rigor, and impact of the manuscript.

Again, thank you and congratulations!

**********

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: Joseph Lobo

**********

[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 Relationship Between Physical Education Teachers' Competence Support and Middle School Students' Participation in Sports: A Chain Mediation Model of Perceived Competence and Exercise Persistence

PONE-D-24-49663R1

Dear Dr. Yan,

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,

Henri Tilga, PhD

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: (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: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No 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 #1: (No Response)

**********

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

**********