Dear Dr. ÖZSARI,

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 Dec 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.

• 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 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. 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. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author M.Çağrı ÇETİN.

4. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 and 4 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

6. 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:

Dear Author(s)

The reviewer has completed the report.

Please make the corrections carefully.

Kind regards

[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?

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: INTRODUCTION

Strengths

The introduction comprehensively and systematically addresses the relationships between physical activity, participation in sports, life satisfaction, and well-being. The logical progression from general health benefits to psychological dimensions is strong and supported by current sources. The author successfully integrates WHO data and theoretical frameworks to emphasize the global importance of the topic. Key concepts such as participation, life satisfaction, and psychological well-being are clearly defined. Overall, the text presents an academic style, extensive knowledge of the literature, and a strong theoretical foundation that supports the study's objectives.

Weaknesses

The introduction section, despite being comprehensive, is overly detailed in places, which detracts from the clarity of the main theme. In particular, the sections on the general health benefits of physical activity are lengthy, delaying the transition to the study's main focus: “the effects of sports participation on life satisfaction and psychological well-being.” Although the conceptual explanations are presented sequentially, the transitions between sections could be made more fluid. Furthermore, the original aspect of the research and the gap in the literature it aims to fill are not sufficiently clear, which weakens the scientific contribution of the study. The purpose of the research is conveyed in general terms in the last paragraph, but the rationale, importance, and expected contributions of this purpose should be emphasized more clearly. In terms of language, some expressions appear unnecessarily emotional or exaggerated, which partially diminishes the academic impartiality of the text. A simpler, more focused, and coherent narrative should be preferred.

METHOD

Strengths

The methodology section is clear, systematic, and structured in a manner appropriate to the research objectives. The correlational survey model used is an appropriate choice for examining the relationships between variables. The high number of participants (n=473) and the balanced gender distribution increase the representativeness of the study. The detailed presentation of the validity and reliability values of the measurement tools constitutes a strong methodological aspect. The high Cronbach's alpha coefficients for each scale demonstrate the reliability of the data quality. Furthermore, the detailed reporting of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results supports the structural validity of the scales. The clear indication of ethics committee approval and the principle of voluntary participation demonstrates that the research was conducted in accordance with ethical standards.

Weaknesses

Although the methodology section is generally adequate, it is open to improvement in some respects. First, the rationale for choosing the relational screening model and how this model aligns with the research hypotheses should be explained more clearly. The use of convenience sampling in sample selection may limit representativeness; the possible effects of this situation have not been discussed. The possible effects of the earthquake conditions experienced during the data collection process on the research process or participant profile have also not been evaluated. In the scales section, the cultural adaptation processes and validation methods of the measurement tools could be explained in more detail. In the statistical analysis section, it is not specified which variables were included in the multiple regression and how the model assumptions were tested. Furthermore, adding a general flow chart or systematic summary table of the research analysis process at the end of the methods section would enhance the readability and methodological transparency of the section.

RESULTS

Additionally, it would be more appropriate to include Table 1 and Table 2 in the methods section of the findings. (Table 1 in the research group and Table 2 in the section explaining the measurement tools)

It can be seen that the table descriptions are above the table. It is recommended that the descriptions be placed below the table.

DISCUSSION

Strengths

The discussion section is quite successful in integrating the research findings with the existing literature. The findings have been systematically compared with previous studies, and similarities have been strongly emphasized. The author has addressed the relationships between sports participation and life satisfaction, mental and psychological well-being from a multidimensional perspective; by discussing the separate effects of the sub-dimensions of “vigor” and “dedication,” he has made an original contribution to the literature. The discussion has produced results at both the theoretical and practical levels, offering applicable recommendations, particularly for sports policies, coaches, and educators. The conclusion and recommendations sections clearly outline the ways in which the research could contribute to social welfare and mental health in general. The chapter demonstrates a strong academic standard in terms of academic language, logical coherence, and source integration.

Weaknesses

Although the discussion section is comprehensive, it needs improvement in some respects. First, the discussion of the findings largely repeats previous studies, and the original contribution of the research should be emphasized more clearly. The text places excessive emphasis on causal inferences in places, but these results are limited to a correlational model; this should be clearly stated in the discussion. The contextual interpretation of the findings (e.g., sports culture in Turkey or post-pandemic sports participation dynamics) is lacking. Furthermore, the impact mechanisms of the “vigor” and “dedication” sub-dimensions could be discussed in a more analytical manner. The limitations section is brief; the data collection method, sample diversity, and the possible effects of cultural factors on the results should be addressed in greater depth. Although the recommendations presented in the final section are valuable, some are of a general nature; adding more concrete strategies for policymakers and practitioners would strengthen the text.

Reviewer #2: Technically well-designed data were collected accurately, and the results obtained from the data were generally found to support the main idea presented in the article. Moreover, this study adequately possesses the necessary scientific characteristics. It is observed that this is a review study and that the data collected were obtained through valid and reliable scales.

The statistical analyses conducted in the study are up-to-date. Primarily, descriptive statistics were used, followed by inferential statistics such as correlation and regression analyses. Furthermore, confirmatory factor analysis was employed to test the model, and model fit indices were reported. From this perspective, the statistical analyses performed are sufficient to obtain accurate and meaningful results.

The authors discussed all the data obtained in the article and presented their hypotheses one by one. Additionally, the collected data and results are adequate to clearly reveal the hypotheses. All essential sections required by the relevant journal were included in the article, and the necessary formatting guidelines were followed.

Finally, the writing language of the article is clear, well-organized, and the results are explained in a simple and understandable manner.

**********

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:  Dr. Kubilay OCAL

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures 

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. 

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Referee Report.pdf

The Impact of Sport Engagement on Life Satisfaction, Mental and Psychological Well-Being Among Athletes

PONE-D-25-54474R1

Dear Dr. Sari,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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: