Effects of Sports Activity on Sustainable Social Environment and Juvenile Aggression
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
This is a noteworthy paper, which presents effect of sports activity on sustainable social environment and juvenile aggression. This reviewer sees the following issues to be addressed upon revision:
The Authors have to check the references in the whole paper (the way they are written, for example line 37) and references should be standardized.
2. Methods – this section should be „2. Materials and Method”
The information about characteristics of participants should be presented in section Results.
Provide the exclusion criterion
What about Bioethics Committee – provide the information if you have or not; if yes give the proper numer of code of agreement.
Likert scale – this scal is 5- or 7-point scale not 4-point
Results
Table 4 – what does it mean „SF” in this table?
P-value in text have to be verify (for exaple line 150 – no information about p-value)
Line 150 – there is two minus „-„ should be one
Discussion
Maybe the authors could elaborate a bit more on what these results could mean for practice?
The Authors should add the conclusions.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO DECISION LETTER
Dear Editor and Reviewer,
We are grateful to the editors and reviewers for their time and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have implemented your comments and suggestions and wish to submit a revised version of the manuscript for further consideration in the journal. Changes in the initial version of the manuscript are either highlighted for added sentences or strikethrough for deleted sentences in the revised version. Below, we also provide a point-by-point response explaining how we have addressed each of the editors or reviewers’ comments. We look forward to the outcome of your assessment
Yours sincerely,
On behalf of the co-authors, Seijun LIM, Ph.D
Reviewer’ decision and comments:
The Authors have to check the references in the whole paper (the way they are written, for example, line 37) and references should be standardized.
Our answer: Thank you for bringing this inconsistency to our attention. We have changed the references in the whole paper to be standardized. Please check the 37th, 248th line.
2. 2. Methods – this section should be 2. Materials and Method”
Our answer: Thank you for raising this point. With your suggestion, we have changed ‘Methods’ to ‘Materials and method.’ You can check the 75th line.
3. The information about the characteristics of participants should be presented in section Results.
Our answer: Thank you for this comment. We have added the information of characteristics of participants to the results section. Please check the 259th line.
4. Provide the exclusion criterion
Our answer: This survey process was conducted on a national unity by the Korea Youth Policy Institute (National Youth Policy Institute: http://www.nypi.re.kr/contents/site.do). This survey included all students as a population and excluded students from the study if students and their parents did not complete an informed consent form. Please refer to the attached sample of informed consent form used in this survey procedure.
5. What about Bioethics Committee – provide the information if you have or not; if yes give the proper number of code of agreement.
Our answer: This data is compiled by Statistics Korea: (http://kostat.go.kr/portal/eng/index.action) to ensure the reliability, ethics, and validity of the research data. The number approved by Statistics Korea is No: 40200 which can be accessible to anyone. Please refer to the attached sample of informed consent form used in this survey procedure
6. Likert scale – this scale is 5- or 7-point scale not 4-point
Our answer: The questionnaire used in this study is correct with the use of a 4-point Likert scale. The reason for using the 4-point Likert scale is to prevent from focusing on the center (Neither untrue nor true) in the response.
7. Table 4 – what does it mean „SF” in this table?
Our answer: Thanks for raising this point. We have modified the contents of the misspelled letter SF to TS (Toward Self) In Table 4. See the 161st Line.
8. P-value in the text have to be verified (for example line 150 – no information about p-value)
Our answer: We have added P-value based on your suggestion.
9. Line 150 – there are two minus „-„ should be one
Our answer: Thank you for bringing this inconsistency to our attention. We have deleted the misspelled ‘-in the statistical description. You can check the 155th line
10. Maybe the authors could elaborate a bit more on what these results could mean for practice?
The Authors should add conclusions.
Our answer: Thank you for this comment. We have added a conclusion section based on your feedback to make it easier and elaborate to understand the results of this study. See the 259th line
* the sample of an informed consent form in the Korean version
개인정보 수집 및 이용 동의서
개인정보 수집·이용에 대하여 「개인정보 보호법(시행, 2016.7.25., 법률 제13423호, 2015.7.24., 일부개정)」에 따라 정보주체의 동의를 받습니다. 수집된 개인정보는 동의 받은 목적 외로는 활용되지 않으며, 정보주체는 본인의 개인정보에 대하여 한국청소년정책연구원과 칸타퍼블릭(조사업체)에 열람, 정정, 삭제 등의 요구를 할 수 있습니다.
개인정보의 수집 및 이용 목적
◦ 조사 진행 및 자료 신뢰성 검토를 위한 연락, 안내문 발송, 학생 본인 여부 확인, 답례품 발송
2. 수집하려는 개인정보 항목
◦ 조사에 참여하는 학생의 이름, 재학 학교명, 전화번호, 학생의 휴대 전화 번호, 보호자의 휴대 전화 번호, 주소 및 학생의 생년월일
3. 수집 방법
◦ 조사원이 설문 응답을 통해 수집
4. 개인정보의 보유 및 이용기간
◦ 한국아동·청소년패널조사 실시 기간(2010년 ~ 2017년)
조사를 위해 수집된 개인정보는 개인정보보호법 제3조, 통계법 제33조, 34조에 의거하여 보호되며, 이를 위반할 경우 통계법 제39조에 의거하여 처벌받을 수 있습니다. 또한, 학생과 보호자께서는 위 내용의 개인정보 수집 및 이용에 대해 동의를 거부할 권리가 있으며, 동의를 거부하실 경우 한국아동·청소년패널조사에 참여하실 수 없습니다.
===============================================================================
본인(이름기입: )은 상기의 개인정보 수집 및 이용에 동의합니다.
작성일자 : 2010년 월 일
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a well written paper and I thoroughly enjoyed reviewing it:
· The paper contains new and significant information adequate to justify publication.
· The paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources.
· The results are presented clearly and analyzed appropriately.
· The paper clearly expresses its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership.
The paper has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO DECISION LETTER
Dear Editor and Reviewer,
We are grateful to the editors and reviewers for their time and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have implemented your comments and suggestions and wish to submit a revised version of the manuscript for further consideration in the journal. Changes in the initial version of the manuscript are either highlighted for added sentences or strikethrough for deleted sentences in the revised version. Below, we also provide a point-by-point response explaining how we have addressed each of the editors or reviewers’ comments. We look forward to the outcome of your assessment.
Yours sincerely,
On behalf of the co-authors, Seijun LIM, Ph.D
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
It was a real pleasure to read your manuscript entitled: Effect of Sports Activity on Sustainable Social Environment and Juvenile Aggression.
The subject presented in our manuscript is very important for the evaluation the risk of development of aggressive behaviors among teenagers. I think that this article is crucial for the beginning of the discussion about the reasons for aggressive behavior among teenagers. The interesting elements of the work is the assessment of influence of mother education and economic situation of family. The Authors have considered the association between sports activity and communication with the teachers and friends, but in my opinion the sex differences in aggression among teenagers should be also taken into account because it is known that the developmental aggression may differ for boys and girls.
My following comments are about the spaces between the words in sentences 81, 140, 175.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO DECISION LETTER
Dear Editor and Reviewer,
We are grateful to the editors and reviewers for their time and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have implemented your comments and suggestions and wish to submit a revised version of the manuscript for further consideration in the journal. Changes in the initial version of the manuscript are either highlighted for added sentences or strikethrough for deleted sentences in the revised version. Below, we also provide a point-by-point response explaining how we have addressed each of the editors or reviewers’ comments. We look forward to the outcome of your assessment.
Yours sincerely,
On behalf of the co-authors, Seijun LIM, Ph.D
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
