PONE-D-24-43160Research on evolution and evaluation of Chinese sports industry based on intelligent analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ma,

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 29 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,

Tinggui Chen

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 note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are 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.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE.

I have completed my evaluation of your manuscript. The reviewers recommend reconsideration of your manuscript following major revision. I invite you to resubmit your manuscript after addressing the comments below.

[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 manuscript titled "Research on evolution and evaluation of Chinese sports industry based on intelligent analysis" (PONE-D-24-43160), need to be revised properly before resubmission:

1. The manuscript lacks a clear statement of the specific research objective. While the importance of evaluating Chinese sports policies is emphasized, it would be helpful to explicitly outline the research question. For instance, clarifying whether the study is focused on evaluating the effectiveness, evolution, or strategic value of sports policies would improve the focus.

2. The use of the PMC index for policy evaluation is innovative, but the explanation of the methodology is somewhat unclear. The process for selecting high-frequency words and mapping them to indicators needs more clarity. What criteria were used to ensure that the high-frequency words directly reflect policy effectiveness? The reliance on text mining may not capture policy intent fully​.

3. The paper mentions using 611 policy documents, but the criteria for selecting specific policies for analysis is not thoroughly explained. Were these policies chosen based on their scope, impact, or frequency of mention? Additionally, there is no explanation of why only six policies were used in the final analysis. Addressing this gap is crucial for replicability​.

4. The division of policy evolution into four phases is informative, but the rationale behind the time periods selected (1978–1992, 1993–2000, etc.) is not well substantiated. Are these divisions based on significant historical events or policy shifts? Providing more justification for these divisions would strengthen the historical analysis.

5. The manuscript mentions that China’s sports policy framework lags behind that of Europe and the USA. However, there is no detailed comparison provided. Including a comparative analysis of China’s sports policies with global standards (e.g., EU or USA policies) would provide greater context and show where China excels or falls short​.

6. The paper heavily relies on the text mining approach to analyze policy documents, but this could miss out on nuances such as policy implications or effectiveness, which are often implicit. Text mining alone may not capture the full depth of policy documents, and supplementary qualitative analysis could provide a more robust evaluation.

7. While the PMC index evaluates the content of policies, there is no discussion on how these policies have been implemented or their real-world outcomes. Including a section on the actual impacts of these policies (e.g., increases in sports participation, economic growth, etc.) would provide a more comprehensive view of policy effectiveness.

8. The study claims that Chinese sports policies are scientifically sound and effective. However, this generalization may not hold for all policy areas. For instance, specific areas like mass sports or competitive sports may face unique challenges that are not covered by the broad evaluation of the policy framework. A more segmented analysis based on policy types could enhance the findings.

9. The paper uses PMC index values to evaluate policy effectiveness, but there is no mention of statistical validation. Are these results statistically significant?

Reviewer #2: 1. Title & Abstract

• Title: The title clearly reflects the scope of the research, but it could be more concise. Consider: “Intelligent Analysis of the Evolution and Evaluation of China’s Sports Industry.”

• Abstract: The abstract provides a good overview of the study, but it is somewhat dense. To enhance clarity, it might help to break up longer sentences and focus on key findings. For example, more emphasis could be placed on the practical implications of the study and what “new directions” were found.

2. Introduction

• The introduction effectively sets the context by highlighting the importance of the sports industry in China. However, more attention could be given to explaining why the sports industry needs intelligent analysis. For a more compelling start, you might include specific data showing the sports industry’s impact on China’s GDP or other socioeconomic metrics to justify the need for optimization.

• It would also help to briefly introduce the PMC index and text mining earlier to give readers a sense of the novel methodology used.

3. Literature Review

• The literature review is comprehensive, with well-cited references to policy assessment methods and related research on sports policy. However, the discussion around methods could be better structured by summarizing the strengths and weaknesses of each method at the end of the review. This would clearly show how the chosen PMC index and text mining are appropriate for the study.

• Some sections in the review (e.g., on European Union policies) feel slightly disconnected from the Chinese context. Consider focusing more directly on Chinese studies or global comparisons relevant to China’s sports industry to strengthen relevance.

4. Methodology

• PMC Index: The explanation of the PMC index and its use in evaluating policy effectiveness is well-done, though it is technical. You might include a simpler explanation or visual to help readers unfamiliar with the model.

• Text Mining: This section could benefit from a more detailed explanation of how text mining was applied. Did the authors use specific software for this analysis? Including a step-by-step breakdown (alongside Figure 1) of how the text mining fed into the PMC index could be valuable.

• Data Collection: The method of collecting policy documents is solid, but you could clarify the selection process a bit more. For example, why were 611 policy documents chosen, and what criteria were used for inclusion/exclusion?

5. Results and Analysis

• The results section provides an insightful analysis of the evolution of China’s sports policies. However, this section is data-heavy and would benefit from more concise summary tables and visuals to break up the text.

• The analysis of the four developmental phases of the sports industry (Germination, Active Exploration, etc.) is strong, but it could use more comparative insights—perhaps by linking China’s progress with international examples.

• In the typical policy analysis, a more qualitative discussion of why policies like P6 or P1 performed better would enrich the quantitative analysis.

6. Discussion

• The discussion around policy instruments, timeliness, and level of policy focus is detailed and insightful. However, this section could be made more engaging by linking findings back to the original research question and emphasizing the implications for future policy-making.

• The limitations of the study are not clearly addressed. A paragraph on potential biases in text mining, or limitations due to the PMC model, could strengthen the transparency of the study.

7. Conclusion and Recommendations

• The conclusion is strong in terms of summarizing the results, but it could be more concise. The recommendations are practical and well-grounded in the analysis.

• It might help to emphasize the future applicability of this intelligent analysis in other sectors or for other countries. For instance, how could this PMC model benefit other developing economies’ sports industries?

8. Clarity & Language

• Overall, the language is clear, but some sections are overly technical. Simplifying jargon-heavy sentences, especially in the methodology and results sections, would help make the paper accessible to a broader audience.

• A few minor grammatical errors were noted, particularly with article usage and sentence length. Proofreading would help with flow.

9. Figures and Tables

• The figures (like the PMC surface maps) are useful but could be better labeled to guide interpretation. Adding more explanatory captions would help.

• The inclusion of high-frequency words in Table 1 is insightful, though this could be integrated into a more visual format (e.g., word clouds) to make it more engaging.

Final Thoughts:

This is a strong paper with a solid methodology, but it would benefit from streamlining certain sections and emphasizing the real-world implications of the findings. The application of intelligent analysis and the PMC index is innovative, but the value it brings to policy-making could be more directly emphasized throughout the paper.

**********

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.

Research on the Evolution and Evaluation of Chinese Sports Industry Policies Based on Intelligent Analysis

PONE-D-24-43160R1

Dear Dr. Ma,

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,

Tinggui Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: 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: All my concerns have been addressed. It can be accepted with minor grammatical and sentence structure correction.

Reviewer #2: I would like to say many thanks for addressing the comments that I recommended. No I recommend to publish

**********

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: Yes: Asim Ahmad

Reviewer #2: No

**********