Which Are the Most Determinant Psychological Factors in Olympic Shooting Performance? A Self-Perspective from Elite Shooters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study addresses a relevant issue and the authors wish to emphasise the importance of using psychological skills to enhance performance. A qualitative study was conducted from 8 shooters and results are reported and discussed.

There are some strengths to this work in that the authors have conducted lengthy interviews with elite sports people. The data would be useful for readers and so the suggestion would be to rewrite the work so that data leads the message. The authors used an inductive approach in their method and so revising the paper so that the case for doing the work reflects the method and then the discussion is based on both is needed. At present, it appears as though the authors have clear expectations from the data before they start, and then report finding them. 

However, there are some limitations.

1. The general flow of arguments needs to be improved, for example, the authors are seeking to make a case for using qualitative work which is inductive yet many deductive arguments as to why the research is necessary. It is hard to see the case for why this methodology is needed to answer research questions the authors wish to investigate.
2. Participants could be identified from information given and this needs to be addressed.
3. The data analysis method for analysing qualitative data was not explained or justified. The authors did not seek to address how they would maintain rigour when using qualitative methods.
4. The questions used in the interview need to be justified with greater depth especially as one of them could be answered with either yes or no.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall the authors do a good job with the write-up, here are some comments.

Introduction

1. While the authors do a good job of talking about the role of anxiety, role of coaches, etc, one of my biggest qualms with the introduction is that during their discussion of what has been done they don't point out the gaps in the literature. The authors need to point out the gaps in the literature so that when they write their aims they can tell the readers what gaps they plan to address.

Methodology

1. I understand that there are 4 males and 4 females, was the age reported for males or females or both? The way it's written make sit difficult to understand.
2. Overall you did an excellent job with the methodology. I appreciate the authors referring the readers to the already published manuscript.

Results

1. Prior to providing information for importance of PT, perhaps the authors should write a sentence above that provides descriptors of the participants (e.g. participants 1 and 8 did not practice PT, while participants 2-7 were regular (> 3 days) practitioners of PT).
2. While the rest of the results were well written there were several minor typographical errors. Please make sure you read it thoroughly and try to catch them.

Discussion

1. I think at the beginning of the discussion the authors should describe the novelty of this small sample study (e.g. the fact that all 8 of these subjects were elite, Olympic level shooters, and there is very little literature available on this type of sample) and how this study contributes to literature.
2. I think another thing you should consider, is talking a little more about the interpersonal differences in anxiety and how it influences performance. There is some quantitative literature on anxiety and fine motor task performance where results are contradictory and your study may provide evidence that there are potential interpersonal differences in how participants respond to anxiety.
3.  Otherwise overall this was well written.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the concerns. I would like them to consider whether this is an issue that is specific to their sample; I think they should delimit the work to the nationality of participants, especiallywhen they talk about sports science support. Its not the same for all countries. They do not need to get into this level of detail but do need to delimit the research accordingly. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx