Peer Review History
Original SubmissionFebruary 28, 2021 |
---|
PONE-D-21-05952 The development of respect in young athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Abad Robles, 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 Jun 05 2021 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:
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: http://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, Francisco Javier Huertas-Delgado, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and
[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 Reviewer #3: Partly Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The development of respect in young athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis First of all, the reviewer would like to thank the authors for their work and efforts in trying to improve sports science knowledge. General comments to the authors Overall, this is a nice study that could have well systematic evaluation when integrated with the practice of sports among young people relating he development of values. The authors are commended on their efforts thus far. The study is well well-written and a great systematic review and meta-analysis. However, I suggest only small corrections to the authors and these corrections will allow improving the manuscript. Abstract Line 27: total effect size should be written with its’ magnitudes Line 29: total effect size should be written with its’ magnitudes Introduction section Line 65: the authors should delete (p. 15) Methods section Line 118: the authors should rewrite sentence especially dates Line 186: the authors should be attention to write capital letter throughout the article Line 270: the authors should delete (p. 404) Results section This section is well designed and well-written. Discussion section Overall the discussion is well-written and incorporates relevant literature. Overall the discussion section should be re-design according to journal guidelines especially margins References The authors should check writing style of references according to journal guidelines Reviewer #2: The topic of the article seems interesting especially as the authors try to present 6 papers of systematic review and a meta-analysis on the development of respect for young athletes. Introduction - the authors present current research on the topic of this article, also highlight certain research that is focused on the direction of the study. I think that a phrase regarding the novelty of the study would be necessary in this chapter to be introduced Line 118 - ''articles published between 2000 16 and 2020'', I think it's a mistake of word processing, please correct it....is 2000 - 2020, or 2000, 2016, 2020??? Another question for the authors refers to the fact that it has been highlighted that most of the studies are from Spain. So, do you have articles from other countries or did you want to analyze especially the research in this country? it is quite strange that 5 articles are from Spain and only one from another country, please detail because this aspect is important and I think that this choice should be highlighted in the article, as clearly as possible. Why in Figure 1 the authors state that ''Studies included in qualitative and quantitative synthesis (meta-analyses) (n = 5/7)''? .......there are not 6 articles analyzed in the end, the figure shows that there are 5 or 7, please explain Reviewer #3: The background of the paper (Line 11-15) is about sport and the promotion of respect in the practice of sport among young people, but later in the paper, we can see that authors mention teachers (Line 40, line 45...) and physical education classes, so it is necessary to harmonize the terminology. We can see that there are six types of research included in the quantitative analysis, four were performed in Secondary Education with boys and girls between 12 and 18 years old, one in Primary Education (10-12 years old), and only one in a football club (10-12 years old). Authors cannot state that “the development of respect in the context of sport can be successfully achieved through a planned and deliberate intervention” based on only one study. The teacher and the coach have different goals so we cannot look at these problems together in the context of sports and physical education, so (Line 68-70) refers to sportsmanship, which does not have to be relevant for physical education classes at school. It is also important which sports are in question (individual, team sports). Line 253-261 repetition from the method section Line 269: substantially_different Line 173-238 is part of the data collection but consisted of the methodology of the interventions in earlier studies. It is not very clear what is the goal of this section. It is a description of the papers and it is too long. We can see that the authors used a different methodology Reviewer #4: General comments: The present paper is interesting. Moreover, it is seemed to be pertinent to highlight the premise of this manuscript is a worthy one, and the authors spent a great time in the research and writing. However, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed to the manuscript prior to publication. Please note that these corrections/suggestions should not be seen as a negative against the hard work the authors have put into this manuscript. The rationale of the present study should be further highlighted. Is the development of personal and social responsibility over the life span important? Of course, it is. Is the respect an important value related to the implementation of good behaviors in sport? Yes, the sport context follows this value and assumes it as a “rule” in and out of the field inclusively. So, could the authors further highlight the pertinence of the study? In the method’ section, a concern of the present study was that the search strategy. Using the current keywords may not be able to include all the related papers. The authors may need some references to support the usage of the current keywords. According to the Figure 1, the initial search only included around 500 papers covering such a broad topic. Therefore, references are necessary to support these keywords. Why not include papers published before 2000? Why did the authors limit the filter of search to three languages? Given the fact that the articles included in the systematic review presented a high level of heterogeneity, what kind of precautions did the authors take to guarantee the interpretation of the results? Discussion Line 347 and line 351 are similar, please rewritten. The authors exposed two main questions to answer through the present systematic review. What did they discover regarding the effectiveness of interventions towards developing respect of boys and girls during sport? Conclusions The authors exposed the importance of the application model of Sport Education as well as the Personal and social Responsibility model or even the Fair Play Programme. Summing up, the authors revealed that three models will be important to promote and develop respect. But did they detect preferable situations for each one to be applied? ********** 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: Yes: Badicu Georgian Reviewer #3: Yes: Aleksandra Aleksić Veljković Reviewer #4: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
|
Revision 1 |
PONE-D-21-05952R1 The development of respect in young athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Abad Robles, 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. There is only one last modification required in the manuscript prior to be accepted. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 01 2021 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:
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: http://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, Francisco Javier Huertas-Delgado, Ph.D. 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 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: No Reviewer #5: No ********** 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 #5: 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 #5: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #5: 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 #5: No ********** 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 #5: 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 #5: 1) In the first paragraph of Results, lines 256-257—“93 were excluded because they were systemic review …”: in Figure it shows 96 instead of 93; “… and 383, after applying the exclusion. criteria”: it’s ambiguous, please revise. [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. |
Revision 2 |
The development of respect in young athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis PONE-D-21-05952R2 Dear Dr. Abad Robles, 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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, 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, Francisco Javier Huertas-Delgado, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-21-05952R2 The development of respect in young athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis Dear Dr. Abad Robles: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. 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 plosone@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 Dr. Francisco Javier Huertas-Delgado Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .