Navigating pathways to develop self-compassion in sport, dance, and music: Qualitative insights from volunteer participants on balancing criticism and compassion, the pivotal influence of the social environment and strategies to overcome setbacks

Céline Kosirnik; Roberta Antonini Philippe; Valentino Pomini

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0326612

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 4, 2024
4 Dec 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326612.r001
May 19 2025 Decision Letter - Mustafa KOC, Editor PONE-D-24-51767Navigating pathways to develop self-compassion in sport, dance, and music: the pivotal influence of the social environmentPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kosirnik, 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 May 19 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, Mustafa Can KOC, 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. 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: Reviewer-1. Overall: This is an excellent manuscript, and I thank the authors for conducting this important piece of research which is a valuable contribution to the social science/psychology literature base. Here are some minor corrections I have listed - Generally: Make sure your citations are consistent across the whole manuscript and that they are in line with the journal criteria. Line 137: Try not to just list citations like this here, explain directly what points they talked about, and how your works builds on them. Line 140: Maybe insert ‘study’ after ‘qualitative research’ Line 164: Can you be more specific about the type of qualitative study this was? Did you adopt a specific research design? Line 177: I’m not sure what a resource person is, this may confuse readers. Can you think of a better term? Line 197: Can you provide a citation that guided your overarching approach to analysis? I know you provide some for the coding, but what about the ‘mixed inductive-deductive analysis’ more generally. Line 323: I’m not sure I like the term ‘Get back to simple mechanism’. Maybe replace it with something catchier, like ‘Back to the basics’? Line 371: Can you provide some more descriptive commentary on this theme here, outlining in a bit more detail what this process involved and why it is significant (alongside the data you have provided). Line 387: Same as point above, please provide a little more descriptive commentary. Line 524: Expand a little more why this validation was crucial to them. Line 649: On the published version of this paper I examined, this is contained on page 272, not 18. Please double check this and make sure it is correct. Line 782: I don’t understand how ‘training or learning to manage these situations’ with compassion is ‘not necessarily possible’. Can you please provide more explanation behind this point or clarify what this means in your response to me. Reviewer-2. This paper addresses a highly pertinent topic —self-compassion in performance domains such as sports, dance, and music. The qualitative insights provided here underscore the potential benefits of self-compassion for athletes, dancers, and musicians, as well as the importance of a supportive social environment in nurturing these attitudes and coping strategies. The study has clear relevance, given the growing interest in mental well-being and resilience within high-performance settings. It adds to the relatively sparse literature on self-compassion among pre-professional performers, thereby filling an important gap. General Comment Despite these merits, the manuscript would benefit from the inclusion of more visually engaging data presentations (e.g., thematic maps, diagrams, tables). Currently, the results rely heavily on textual explanation, which can impede a clearer interpretation of the findings and limit readers’ ability to construct a cohesive narrative of the data. Specific Points for Improvement Title Specificity: The current title does not reflect that participants were volunteers drawn from a convenience sample. Specifying this aspect would clarify the study’s scope and methodological constraints. Gender Distribution: The sample is heavily female-dominated, but the paper lacks a thorough discussion of how this imbalance might affect the findings. Addressing potential gender-related biases or limitations would strengthen the study’s credibility. Validation of Interview Guide: The methodological section does not provide robust detail on how the interview instrument was validated (e.g., pilot testing, external expert reviews). Including this information would help readers assess the rigour of the qualitative approach. Depth of Recommendations: While recommendations on how to foster self-compassion are offered, they remain overly general. Providing more detailed, step-by-step or evidence-informed guidelines for coaches, trainers, or educators would greatly enhance the paper’s applicability, with proper referencing. Conciseness: There is repetition in both the introduction and the discussion, particularly around conceptual definitions. A more succinct treatment of core concepts would improve readability and allow for deeper engagement with new insights. Conclusion: The conclusion is coherent but somewhat broad. Highlighting a clear, specific contribution —such as identifying unique themes or actionable strategies for different types of performers— would demonstrate the paper’s added value. Overall, this manuscript covers an essential domain of performance psychology and offers thoughtful perspectives on the development of self-compassion. With more focused revisions and the inclusion of compelling data visualizations, it has the potential to make a substantial contribution to the literature on mental well-being in sport, dance, and music contexts. [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: 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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: Overall: This is an excellent manuscript, and I thank the authors for conducting this important piece of research which is a valuable contribution to the social science/psychology literature base. Here are some minor corrections I have listed - Generally: Make sure your citations are consistent across the whole manuscript and that they are in line with the journal criteria. Line 137: Try not to just list citations like this here, explain directly what points they talked about, and how your works builds on them. Line 140: Maybe insert ‘study’ after ‘qualitative research’ Line 164: Can you be more specific about the type of qualitative study this was? Did you adopt a specific research design? Line 177: I’m not sure what a resource person is, this may confuse readers. Can you think of a better term? Line 197: Can you provide a citation that guided your overarching approach to analysis? I know you provide some for the coding, but what about the ‘mixed inductive-deductive analysis’ more generally. Line 323: I’m not sure I like the term ‘Get back to simple mechanism’. Maybe replace it with something catchier, like ‘Back to the basics’? Line 371: Can you provide some more descriptive commentary on this theme here, outlining in a bit more detail what this process involved and why it is significant (alongside the data you have provided). Line 387: Same as point above, please provide a little more descriptive commentary. Line 524: Expand a little more why this validation was crucial to them. Line 649: On the published version of this paper I examined, this is contained on page 272, not 18. Please double check this and make sure it is correct. Line 782: I don’t understand how ‘training or learning to manage these situations’ with compassion is ‘not necessarily possible’. Can you please provide more explanation behind this point or clarify what this means in your response to me. Reviewer #2: This paper addresses a highly pertinent topic —self-compassion in performance domains such as sports, dance, and music. The qualitative insights provided here underscore the potential benefits of self-compassion for athletes, dancers, and musicians, as well as the importance of a supportive social environment in nurturing these attitudes and coping strategies. The study has clear relevance, given the growing interest in mental well-being and resilience within high-performance settings. It adds to the relatively sparse literature on self-compassion among pre-professional performers, thereby filling an important gap. General Comment Despite these merits, the manuscript would benefit from the inclusion of more visually engaging data presentations (e.g., thematic maps, diagrams, tables). Currently, the results rely heavily on textual explanation, which can impede a clearer interpretation of the findings and limit readers’ ability to construct a cohesive narrative of the data. Specific Points for Improvement Title Specificity: The current title does not reflect that participants were volunteers drawn from a convenience sample. Specifying this aspect would clarify the study’s scope and methodological constraints. Gender Distribution: The sample is heavily female-dominated, but the paper lacks a thorough discussion of how this imbalance might affect the findings. Addressing potential gender-related biases or limitations would strengthen the study’s credibility. Validation of Interview Guide: The methodological section does not provide robust detail on how the interview instrument was validated (e.g., pilot testing, external expert reviews). Including this information would help readers assess the rigour of the qualitative approach. Depth of Recommendations: While recommendations on how to foster self-compassion are offered, they remain overly general. Providing more detailed, step-by-step or evidence-informed guidelines for coaches, trainers, or educators would greatly enhance the paper’s applicability, with proper referencing. Conciseness: There is repetition in both the introduction and the discussion, particularly around conceptual definitions. A more succinct treatment of core concepts would improve readability and allow for deeper engagement with new insights. Conclusion: The conclusion is coherent but somewhat broad. Highlighting a clear, specific contribution —such as identifying unique themes or actionable strategies for different types of performers— would demonstrate the paper’s added value. Overall, this manuscript covers an essential domain of performance psychology and offers thoughtful perspectives on the development of self-compassion. With more focused revisions and the inclusion of compelling data visualizations, it has the potential to make a substantial contribution to the literature on mental well-being in sport, dance, and music contexts. ****** 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: Anthony J Bell Reviewer #2: Yes: Gabriel Alves ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326612.r002
Revision 1
31 May 2025 Author Response You can find, below, my responses to the reviewers’ comments. I hope they answer to their wish. Also, I've created a new Table (as asked from a reviewer), and I've modified the Figure 1. The new table was added in the new manuscript and the modified figure was re submitted. Reviewer-1. Overall: This is an excellent manuscript, and I thank the authors for conducting this important piece of research which is a valuable contribution to the social-science/psychology literature base. Here are some minor corrections I have listed - • Thank you very much for your comment. Hopefully, our work will help change things in the performance world too. Generally: Make sure your citations are consistent across the whole manuscript and that they are in line with the journal criteria. • I've checked all the citations and normally everything's clear. I've added the doi, where possible. Line 137: Try not to just list citations like this here, explain directly what points they talked about, and how your works builds on them. • I've added information about the research presented to have a clearer view of the important points regarding their study. Line 140: Maybe insert ‘study’ after ‘qualitative research’ • The word study has been added. Line 164: Can you be more specific about the type of qualitative study this was? Did you adopt a specific research design? • I explain that it's a one-on-one, semi-structured interview. I've added that it's qualitative research allowing us to understand and explore the concept of self-compassion in a flexible yet guided way to ensure reproductability. Line 177: I’m not sure what a resource person is, this may confuse readers. Can you think of a better term? • I've changed the word resource by expert of the discipline. We did a pilot testing with an expert of the field dance, music and sport to ensure that the questions were comprehensive. Line 197: Can you provide a citation that guided your overarching approach to analysis? I know you provide some for the coding, but what about the ‘mixed inductive-deductive analysis’ more generally. • I've added citations that support this analytical process. Line 323: I’m not sure I like the term ‘Get back to simple mechanism’. Maybe replace it with something catchier, like ‘Back to the basics’? • Great suggestion! I've changed the title to "Back to the basics" Line 371: Can you provide some more descriptive commentary on this theme here, outlining in a bit more detail what this process involved and why it is significant (alongside the data you have provided). • I've added few commentaries. Line 387: Same as point above, please provide a little more descriptive commentary. • I've added few commentaries. Line 524: Expand a little more why this validation was crucial to them. • I've added few commentaries. Line 649: On the published version of this paper I examined, this is contained on page 272, not 18. Please double check this and make sure it is correct. • Indeed, I'm sorry for this mistake. It has been changed. Line 782: I don’t understand how ‘training or learning to manage these situations’ with compassion is ‘not necessarily possible’. Can you please provide more explanation behind this point or clarify what this means in your response to me. • I've tried to make it clearer. Reviewer-2. This paper addresses a highly pertinent topic —self-compassion in performance domains such as sports, dance, and music. The qualitative insights provided here underscore the potential benefits of self-compassion for athletes, dancers, and musicians, as well as the importance of a supportive social environment in nurturing these attitudes and coping strategies. The study has clear relevance, given the growing interest in mental well-being and resilience within high- performance settings. It adds to the relatively sparse literature on self-compassion among pre-professional performers, thereby filling an important gap. • Thank you very much for your positive comment. General Comment Despite these merits, the manuscript would benefit from the inclusion of more visually engaging data presentations (e.g., thematic maps, diagrams, tables). Currently, the results rely heavily on textual explanation, which can impede a clearer interpretation of the findings and limit readers’ ability to construct a cohesive narrative of the data. • There is one figure resuming the data and I've added a table exposing the themes and subthemes as well as the results overview in one sentence. Is it clearer like this? Specific Points for Improvement Title Specificity: The current title does not reflect that participants were volunteers drawn from a convenience sample. Specifying this aspect would clarify the study’s scope and methodological constraints. • I've modified the title for the following: Navigating pathways to develop self-compassion in sport, dance, and music: qualitative insights from volunteer participants on balancing criticism and compassion, the pivotal influence of the social environment and strategies to overcome setbacks. I hope it clarifies the scope and methodological constraints, as suggested. Gender Distribution: The sample is heavily female-dominated, but the paper lacks a thorough discussion of how this imbalance might affect the findings. Addressing potential gender-related biases or limitations would strengthen the study’s credibility. • I've added this point in the limitations. Validation of Interview Guide: The methodological section does not provide robust detail on how the interview instrument was validated (e.g., pilot testing, external expert reviews). Including this information would help readers assess the rigour of the qualitative approach. • One sentence was added in the section "Semi-structured interviews", explaining that the interview guide was discussed and tested with an expert of each discipline (dance, music and one sport). Depth of Recommendations: While recommendations on how to foster self-compassion are offered, they remain overly general. Providing more detailed, step-by-step or evidence-informed guidelines for coaches, trainers, or educators would greatly enhance the paper’s applicability, with proper referencing. • Given that the findings of the present study concern exclusively performers, we find it essential to also incorporate the perspectives of coaches to develop more detailed and applicable recommendations. A complementary article is currently in preparation, focusing on coaches as the target population, with the objective of formulating clearer, evidence-based recommendations tailored to their needs, in dialogue with the insights presented in this study. Conciseness: There is repetition in both the introduction and the discussion, particularly around conceptual definitions. A more succinct treatment of core concepts would improve readability and allow for deeper engagement with new insights. • I've tried to erase repetitions and combine paragraphs that could be combined. Conclusion: The conclusion is coherent but somewhat broad. Highlighting a clear, specific contribution —such as identifying unique themes or actionable strategies for different types of performers— would demonstrate the paper’s added value. • I tried to identify more clearly the unique themes of this study and propose strategies to develop self-compassion. I hope it answers your wish for a more specific conclusion. Overall, this manuscript covers an essential domain of performance psychology and offers thoughtful perspectives on the development of self-compassion. With more focused revisions and the inclusion of compelling data visualizations, it has the potential to make a substantial contribution to the literature on mental well-being in sport, dance, and music contexts. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers_C.Kosirnik.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326612.r003
Decision Letter - Mustafa KOC, Editor Navigating pathways to develop self-compassion in sport, dance, and music: qualitative insights from volunteer participants on balancing criticism and compassion, the pivotal influence of the social environment and strategies to overcome setbacks PONE-D-24-51767R1 Dear Kosirnik, 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, Mustafa Can KOC, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326612.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Mustafa KOC, Editor PONE-D-24-51767R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kosirnik, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Assoc.Prof. Mustafa Can KOC Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326612.r005

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .