PONE-D-25-48875 An industry perspective in Irish horseracing on the availability of retirement specific support services for professional jockeys and perceived barriers and facilitators to their use. PLOS One

Dear Dr. Langton,

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 Mar 23 2026 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 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,

Hesam Ramezanzade, Ph.D

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 provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

3. We note that you have referenced “Lynch, 2006” 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: as detailed online in our guide for authors

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

4. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

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.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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: No

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: Please consider revising the title so it clearly reflects that the study is written from a service-provider perspective. It would also strengthen the paper if the limitations section were expanded to openly acknowledge the absence of jockey voices, the risk of insider bias, the limited generalisability of the findings, and the potential for confirmation bias.

To avoid the study feeling incomplete, it would be helpful to explicitly commit to Phase 2, outlining a clear plan—including timeline, funding considerations, and methodological approach—for interviewing jockeys. The discussion section could also be tightened by about 30%, removing repetition and trimming content that does not directly contribute to retirement support (including the mental-health section if it is not fully integrated).

Adding a reflexivity statement would meaningfully enhance the transparency of the work by explaining how your insider role shaped data collection and interpretation. The practical recommendations would benefit from deeper detail as well, especially regarding funding, implementation barriers, strategies for engaging trainers, and realistic rollout timelines.

As minor suggestions, you may want to clarify your theoretical framework by using one or two consistent lenses (or explicitly noting the exploratory nature of the study), include a brief comparison table outlining JETS (UK), Game Plan (Canada), and the proposed Irish model, consider member-checking with participants, and reflect on power dynamics—specifically how your organisational relationships may have influenced what participants felt comfortable sharing.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript on career transition support for Irish jockeys. I enjoyed reading about this important topic and can see the value your research brings to the horseracing community.

OVERALL IMPRESSION

You've tackled a really important issue that hasn't been studied much before. Your interviews with stakeholders across Irish racing organizations provide valuable insights, and I can see this work making a real difference for jockeys facing retirement. However, there are several areas that need attention.

WHAT WORKS WELL

Your study has real strengths:

• You're the first to look specifically at Irish jockey retirement support - this fills a genuine gap

• You spoke with representatives from all the key organizations (IHRB, HRI, RACE, etc.) which gives a comprehensive view

• The barriers and facilitators you identified are clearly presented and practical

• Your recommendations (like CPD requirements and flexible education) could actually be implemented

• The quotes from participants really bring the findings to life

MAIN ISSUES TO ADDRESS

I've organized these from most critical to less urgent:

Critical Issues (must be fixed):

1. Title typo: There's a "2" in "support 2 services" that needs removing. Also, the title is quite long - try to get it under 15 words.

2. No limitations section: This is a significant omission. Every research paper needs to discuss its limitations. Please add a paragraph addressing things like: only talking to stakeholders (not jockeys themselves), the small sample size, potential bias from being insiders in jockey research, and that findings come from just one country.

3. Abstract: Your abstract is vague about what you actually found. Instead of saying "themes were identified," tell us what those themes were and give us some numbers.

4. Research questions not explicit: Right now you say you want to "explore perceptions" which is quite general. At the end of your introduction, add clear numbered research questions like:

o RQ1: What support services currently exist for Irish jockeys?

o RQ2: What prevents jockeys from using these services?

o RQ3: What would help jockeys use support services more?

5. Missing theoretical framework: You mention several theories throughout but never clearly state which one guides your study. Pick one model (Schlossberg's transition model would work well) and add a paragraph in your introduction explaining how it frames your research.

6. Methods section needs more detail:

o Create a table showing your 11 participants (their roles, how long they've been in position, whether they work directly with jockeys)

o Explain your coding process more clearly - who did it? Was it just you or did others help? Did you check reliability?

o Your "rigor" section is only 4 lines - expand this to explain how you ensured quality (credibility, transferability, etc.)

Important Issues:

7. Organizational descriptions in wrong place: Lines 49-68 where you describe IHRB, HRI, Equipp, etc. - this belongs in your Methods section, not the Introduction. The Introduction should be about concepts and theory, not organizational structure.

8. Discussion structure: Your discussion jumps around a bit and repeats things. Reorganize it with clear sections: summary of findings, what theories explain your results, comparison to other research, practical recommendations, limitations, future research, conclusion.

9. Weak jockey literature base: You only cite two studies on jockey retirement (both Australian, both from 2006-2007). That's okay - this literature simply doesn't exist yet! But acknowledge this explicitly and explain why it makes your study even more important as foundational work.

10. Recommendations too vague: Instead of saying "stigma should be addressed," be specific. For example: "IHRB should require 10 hours of CPD annually for license renewal, including modules on career planning, financial literacy, and post-racing career options. Implementation: pilot program 2026, full rollout 2027.

11. A few typos and grammatical errors throughout (line 38: "themselves'", line 69: missing apostrophe, etc.) - needs a careful proofread

12. The philosophical section (lines 123-140) is quite long and uses jargon without defining it. Shorten to 4-5 sentences and explain what "emic epistemology" actually means for your study.

13. Discussion could be shortened , there's some repetition that could be cut.

**********

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.]

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: An industry perspective in Irish horseracing.docx

A service provider perspective in Irish horseracing on the availability of retirement specific support services for professional jockeys and perceived barriers and facilitators to their use

PONE-D-25-48875R1

Dear Dr. Langton,

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,

Hesam Ramezanzade, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS One