PONE-D-24-23784Dispositional Goal Orientation and Perceptions of Coach Motivational Climate on Attitudes towards Doping among Kenyan Endurance RunnersPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kipchumba,

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: 

Overall Evaluation:

The manuscript is exceptionally composed, tackling a noteworthy issue in the realm of sports, and offers helpful knowledge of the associations among objective orientations, motivational climate, and doping propensities among Kenyan endurance runners. Withminor adjustments and clarifications, it has the potential to make a significant commitment to the writing on doping counteraction.

Summary of Recommendations for Authors

• Enhance the clarity of theresearch gap and organize the literature review more effectively.
• Explain the reliability and validity of the instruments utilized. Additionally, discuss the justification for selecting non-parametric tests.
• Present statistical values and discuss their practical significance.
• Extend the practical implications and provide specific recommendations.
• Ensure proper formatting of references.
• To improve the overall quality of your writing, it may be necessary to re-evaluate the English language standards employed in your manuscript.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 25 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,

Clementswami Sukumaran, 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. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods).

Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability.

3. We note that you have referenced

(Chebet, S. (2014). Evaluation of Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Doping among Elite Middle and Long Distance Runners in Kenya [Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis]. Kenyatta University.

Kamenju, J. W. (2011). Influence of Sports Disciplines and Demographics of Kenya’s Colleges Athletes On Their Awareness, Perception And Attitude To Performance-Enhancing Substances Use [Unpublished Ph.D Thesis]. Kenyatta University.)

which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Bewick et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

5. 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.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: I am thankful for providing me an opportunity to review the manuscript. I believe the authors tap into an important topic in sports sciences, especially coach motivational climate on attitudes towards doping for athletes. However, I think some things need clarifying for the publication that will help in the interpretation and understanding of the general and specific concepts.

Introduction: In introduction first line remove the repetition words “Doping is a is a worldwide” Authors need to recheck the introduction. The language should be reviewed by a native speaker to improve clarity.

Method: Kindly justify which method used for the sample size/ and the procedure.

Discussion:

- Some explanations are repetitive with the results section.

- If the authors can discuss the mechanisms underlying the significant and non-significant results in more depth, it would be beneficial. Simply mentioning consistent and inconsistent results with previous investigations may not be engaging enough for readers.

Conclusion:

- When discussing the underlying mechanism, the section could be better organized.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: Yes:  MARRIUM BASHIR

**********

[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-24-23784R1Dispositional Goal Orientation and Perceptions of Coach Motivational Climate on Attitudes towards Doping among Kenyan Endurance RunnersPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kipchumba,

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: Your paper, "Dispositional Goal Orientation and Perceptions of Coach Motivational Climate on Attitudes towards Doping among Kenyan Endurance Runners," is well-structured, but several areas could be slightly improved:

1. Flow of Information : The transition from the literature review to the methodology is abrupt. A concluding paragraph in the literature review would create a smoother transition.
2. Coherence : The Results section would benefit from linking sentences between descriptive statistics and correlation analysis for better readability.
3. Clarity : The cross-sectional survey design and sampling method need more detail. Clarifying the stratified random sampling process will improve precision.
4. Structure : Consolidating demographic findings into a single subsection would enhance focus.
5. Logical Gaps : Before offering recommendations, discuss the findings’ implications in the context of existing literature for a stronger conclusion.

These revisions will enhance the paper's clarity, coherence, and impact. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 06 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,

Clementswami Sukumaran, PhD

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.

[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 #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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The paper "Dispositional Goal Orientation and Perceptions of Coach Motivational Climate on Attitudes towards Doping among Kenyan Endurance Runners" examines the influence of goal orientation and coach-created motivational climate on doping attitudes among Kenyan endurance runners. While the paper demonstrates effective organization, several areas warrant improvement:

1. Flow of Information: The transition between the literature review and methodology sections lacks cohesion. The inclusion of a summarizing paragraph at the conclusion of the literature review would facilitate a smoother transition.

2. Coherence Between Paragraphs: The Results section would benefit from enhanced readability through the incorporation of linking sentences between descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.

3. Clarity: The description of the cross-sectional survey and sampling method lacks precision. Elucidating the utilization of stratified random sampling would enhance methodological clarity.

4. Structure and Organization: Demographic findings pertaining to doping attitudes are dispersed throughout the paper. Consolidating these findings under a single subsection would improve focus and coherence.

5. Logical Gaps: The conclusion section progresses directly to recommendations without adequate discussion of implications. Incorporating a discussion of findings within the context of existing literature prior to presenting recommendations would provide more comprehensive insights.

Addressing these aspects would enhance the paper's clarity, coherence, and overall impact.

**********

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:  MARRIUM BASHIR

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Clementswami Sukumaran, PhD

**********

[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-24-23784R2Dispositional Goal Orientation and Perceptions of Coach Motivational Climate on Attitudes towards Doping among Kenyan Endurance RunnersPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kipchumba,

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:

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your submission and for addressing the comments from the previous review round. The manuscript is well-organized, and the data support the conclusions drawn. However, there are a few areas that require further attention to improve the clarity and flow of the manuscript:

Completed Comments:

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? 

    Completed: The reviewer has confirmed that the manuscript presents a technically sound piece of research and that the data support the conclusions.

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

    Completed: The reviewer confirms that the statistical analysis is appropriately performed.

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

    Completed: The reviewer confirms that the data availability statement complies with PLOS ONE's data policy.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? 

    Completed: The reviewer indicates that the manuscript is written clearly in standard English, with no notable typographical or grammatical errors.

5. 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. 

    Completed: The reviewer acknowledges that all comments from the previous review have been addressed.

 Incomplete Comments (Areas for Improvement):

 1. Flow of Information (Incomplete) 

Reviewer's Comment: 

The transition between the literature review and methodology sections lacks cohesion. The inclusion of a summarizing paragraph at the conclusion of the literature review would facilitate a smoother transition.

 Required Action: 

  Add a concluding summarizing paragraph at the end of the literature review to bridge the gap to the methodology section. This paragraph should briefly restate the literature's main findings and gaps, followed by a segue into your research focus.

 Example to include: 

  “While existing research has explored several factors influencing doping behaviors in athletes, there is a clear gap in understanding how dispositional goal orientation and coach created motivational climate influence doping attitudes, particularly in Kenyan endurance runners. This study aims to fill this gap by examining these factors within the Kenyan athletic context.”

2. Coherence Between Paragraphs (Undone) 

Reviewer's Comment: 

The Results section would benefit from enhanced readability through the incorporation of linking sentences between descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.

What needs to be done: 

Add transition sentences between sections in the Results chapter to enhance readability and link different analysis parts.

Example to include: 

After the descriptive statistics section, include a statement such as: 

"Following the presentation of descriptive statistics, the subsequent section examines the relationships between the demographic variables and attitudes towards doping utilizing correlation analysis."

This will facilitate the reader's transition from one analysis to the next.

3. Clarity (Undone) 

Reviewer's Comment: 

The description of the cross-sectional survey and sampling method lacks precision. Elucidating the utilization of stratified random sampling would enhance methodological clarity.

What needs to be done: 

Provide additional detail regarding the description of stratified random sampling in the Methodology section. Elucidate the process of participant selection within each stratum.

Example to include: 

"A stratified random sampling technique was employed to ensure proportional representation across gender, age, and experience. Initially, the population was stratified based on these demographic variables. Subsequently, participants were randomly selected from each stratum, ensuring the sample accurately reflected the target population of Kenyan endurance runners."

This clarifies the methodology for readers unfamiliar with the sampling technique.

4. Structure and Organization (Undone) 

Reviewer's Comment: 

Demographic findings pertaining to doping attitudes are dispersed throughout the paper. Consolidating these findings under a single subsection would improve focus and coherence.

What needs to be done: 

Establish a dedicated subsection for demographic differences in doping attitudes. This will facilitate the consolidation of all related findings in one location, enhancing readability.

Example of a new subsection: 

Add a section titled "Demographic Differences in Doping Attitudes" under Results and group all related findings (Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal–Wallis test results) together.

5. Logical Gaps (Undone) 

Reviewer's Comment: 

The conclusion section progresses directly to recommendations without adequate discussion of implications. Incorporating a discussion of findings within the context of existing literature prior to presenting recommendations would provide more comprehensive insights.

What needs to be done: 

Expand the discussion section by linking your findings with existing literature before offering recommendations. This will provide a more thorough analysis and improve the flow of the conclusion.

Example to include: 

"Consistent with previous studies (Allen et al., 2015; Mwangi et al., 2019), this research found that task orientation was negatively associated with attitudes towards doping, suggesting that an emphasis on personal growth and effort can discourage doping behaviors. However, the contrasting findings regarding gender and age highlight the need for more contextual research in the Kenyan athletic setting…"

This approach connects your findings to the existing body of knowledge before proceeding to any practical recommendations.

Summary:

Done:

 The manuscript is technically sound, with appropriate statistical analysis and data availability.

 Language and presentation are clear and correct.

 The review comments from the previous round have been addressed.

Undone:

1. Flow of Information: Add a summarizing paragraph to the literature review to transition smoothly to the methodology.

2. Coherence Between Paragraphs: Include linking sentences between descriptive statistics and correlation analysis in the Results section.

3. Clarity: Provide more precision in describing the stratified random sampling method.

4. Structure and Organization: Consolidate demographic findings regarding doping attitudes under one subsection.

5. Logical Gaps: Expand the conclusion section by discussing findings in the context of existing literature before offering recommendations.

Once these minor revisions are implemented, I am confident the manuscript will be suitable for publication. I look forward to receiving your updated submission.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 17 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,

Clementswami Sukumaran, PhD

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.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[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.

Dispositional Goal Orientation and Perceptions of Coach Motivational Climate on Attitudes towards Doping among Kenyan Endurance Runners

PONE-D-24-23784R3

Dear Dr. Kipchumba,

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,

Clementswami Sukumaran, 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 #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 #2: Yes

**********

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

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 #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 #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 #2: Dear Authors,

This correspondence serves to confirm receipt of your revised manuscript entitled "Dispositional Goal Orientation and Perceptions of Coach Motivational Climate on Attitudes towards Doping among Kenyan Endurance Runners." The following provides a summary of my comments and the current status of each:

1. Flow of Information – The transition between the literature review and methodology has been enhanced with the addition of a concluding paragraph. (Addressed)

2. Coherence in Results – Linking sentences have been incorporated to improve readability between descriptive statistics and correlation analysis. (Addressed)

3. Clarity in Methodology – The explanation of stratified random sampling has been elucidated. (Addressed)

4. Structure & Organization – Demographic findings on doping attitudes have been consolidated under a single subsection. (Addressed)

5. Logical Gaps in Conclusion – A discussion of findings within the context of existing literature has been included prior to presenting recommendations. (Addressed)

With all concerns adequately addressed, the manuscript now demonstrates improved cohesion, structure, and clarity.

It is deemed suitable for acceptance.

**********

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 #2: No

**********