Sports Training during COVID-19 First Lockdown—A Romanian Coaches’ Experience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is a study of the consequences of the pandemic on the training conditions of athletes. The authors are particularly interested in coaches. The study is serious and the number of questionnaires is large. However, some limitations are observed:

• 
  - The absence of scientific references in the field is very detrimental to the quality of the study.  The authors should contextualise their research by referring to recent studies in the field.
• 
  - The quantitative study is very descriptive and too detailed. The large number of statistical references disturbs the understanding of the text. I suggest that the authors highlight the main points without giving too much detail.
• 
  - I think that a more detailed analysis of the means imagined by the coaches to maintain a good level of performance would be interesting. This would require a qualitative analysis through interviews from a psycho-sociological perspective.
  
  

The article has real qualities but the authors need to increase the relevance of their study to be published in this journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors. Some details could improve the understanding of the work.
-The punctuation of the text should be revised. 
-It would be interesting to clarify some questions of methodology: 

-How was the questionnaire constructed? What analytical categories did its construction rely on? What kind of validation was done on the questionnaire to avoid questions leading or biasing participants' answers?
-Why was the 15-year threshold used as a criterion for dividing participants? 

-The hypothesis made in the work should be included in the methodology.

Regardless of whether the study is correct or not, I do not see the relationship of the study with the topic of the blockchain monograph, or with the editorial line of the journal. 
The topic addressed would be more in line with a journal like Sports (MDPI).

In any case, I do not see clearly the contribution of this work neither to the field of "Blockchain in Distance Learning Education", nor to the field of sports training. The opinions of these professionals are described and several results are, to a certain extent, predictable and superficial, and do not allow to deepen the strategies used by coaches in the confinement situation and how they solved their problems. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors thank you for submitting your manuscript. My comments are the following

• line 25. Please reword the sentence and remove "they", for clarity
• Abstract: state clearly the hypothesis and the research gap that led to the article.
• The introduction session is not clear and it does not follow the article. It is highly recommended to merge together the "introduction" and "Theoretical Framework" sections in one single introduction in which it is clear the situation and the background (your framework). Followed by the research gap (in layman terms why you embrace the research) and the hypothesis that you want to test.
• The explanation of distanced learning is very interesting, I recommend including information about embodied theories and how a lack of training has a direct impact on cognitive capacities.
• In the methods, you mentioned social media and how the questionnaire was distributed. Please provide more details, what platform did you use (e.g., suverymonkey)? How did you select the participants? How did you ensure that the questionnaire was completed only once by every single participant? Did all participants complete all the questions?
• In the procedure section, you mentioned different sub-section of the questionnaire. Please explain how each was selected and why that specific number of questions was chosen.
• Please chose the number of decimals you what to display and be consistent. It is rather 0.00 or 0.0 no both. Correct from methods, results and discussion sections.
• Figure 1 - It is not possible to read this figure. Consider changing it to a table or erase it from the document.
• Tables have different formating. Make sure they all follow the same formatting.
• Figures 2-4, interesting figures but very difficult to read please adapt them including a clearer explanation for each.
• The results section need to be preceded by clear methods. It is important for the reader to understand the questionnaire that was used and the question in each domain otherwise it is very difficult to read
• The discussion section needs to be driven by stronger results. It is not clear the novelty aspect of the research. Authors started the session by writing "The results demonstrated that the Romanian coaches surveyed encountered Numerous difficulties in delivering training sessions according to the pre-established strategy, during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic". This is not enough and neither is it novel.
• Limitation - this section is very brief. It is recommended to explain the limitation and include suggestion for future scenarios (post-pandemic)

The research has potential and it is a topic extremely important. The lack of physical activities and the strategies that can be used in cross and post-pandemic are indeed important. But more important is to explain clearly the hypothesis and results of the research. Please reword the document and narrow down each section clearly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did not really respond to the critique. The text has been improved a bit but the changes are not enough to really increase the relevance. The text is of good quality but I think it does not meet the requirements of the journal, especially in the methodology and analysis of the results.

Author Response

New revisions were made.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, thank you for responding to the proposed suggestions. 
Kind regards

Author Response

Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors thank you for submitting your manuscript below are my corrections and comments.

Abstract

• Include some data in the abstract. E.g., in line 22 what is the age range of the couches; how many males? how many females? This would show the inclusivity and transparency of your work
• In line 25, it is not necessary to specify the software in the abstract remove SPSS etc. However, it is necessary to explain the analysis. Was it qualitative? Quantitative? how is the p-value calculated? Did you use an ANOVA? Were the data parametric? Please clarify.
• Line 27, you mentioned the data, however, there are no data in your abstract. Please insert some results in your abstract.

Introduction

• Line 37-39. Did the WHO imposed the lockdown in Romania, or did the local government did? It is not clear from the first sentence, please clarify.
• Line 60-62. Please add some references. Who are these specialists?
• Line 65. What are the difficulties mentioned for Romanian in using IT tools? Please explain.
• Line 72. Again, please explain more in detail who are these specialists, it is necessary to add more references and details.

Methods

• in the abstract, you mentioned 407 participants, in the methods these become 406. Please correct.
• Line 128. Please clarify if it means 15 years old; 12 to 15 years old or you mend 15 years of experience; 12 to 15 years of experience.

Results 

• Figure 1-4. Does not meet the journal criteria. Note, the figures are not focused, are not easy to read and do not have enough caption. Consider or change it to other figures, or use tables instead.
• Table 1-3.  Consider adding it to a separate page, whit horizontal orientation. In this way, you can make it bigger and more clear. Also, none of the tables has sufficient caption.  Consider if someone is referring to your work in a presentation or classroom the table should have enough information to interpret the data.

Discussion and Conclusion

• Also in the discussion, the participants are 407. Please ensure it is consistent in all paragraphs.
• Line 510, erase "Obviously" is it a jargon not accurate for a scientific paper.
• Line 513-514. "Numerous studies...", please cite them. It is not enough to mentions that "experts" or "studies" reported something if there is no reference to it.
• Line 527-531. Please clarify. It is currently difficult to read and understand what you mean here and how it is related to reference 32-36.
• Line 533-534. Please add more detail a list of symptoms is not sufficient
• Line 546. Why refer to 41 and 42? Can you include more arguments?
• Concerning IT use, different sports might report different use of IT, for instance, individual sports training (such as weightlifting) might be easier than contact sports (such as boxing or rugby). How did you include these differences in your analysis and discussion?
• Section 5.3, need more details. The "working from home" scenario has produced a vast quantity of papers in relation to increment in stress, domestic abuse and lack of work motivation. These aspects should be included to put the coaches in a more broad overview.
• The correlation between variables reads very similarly to the results section. What are your speculations upon these results? Why do you think these are such interesting outcomes? And how do these correlate with other research?
• In the discussion, explain how the studies met your hypothesis.
• Line 640, please rephrase, "myriad" is not correct for a scientific paper.
• Include in the conclusion a sentence that emphasises your findings. Such as "Concluding our results showed XYZ". You can even consider adding a table of take-home points.

Appendixes

• Please ensure that the formatting of the appendixes is similar to the one of the text.

References

• Please ensure that the references have the same formatting.

The document is very interesting and I will favour its publication on MDPI however there are a few things that need to be addressed before considering it.

Best wishes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made significant changes and improvements, particularly in the discussion section. Scientific works and authors are cited more. Generalization and conceptualization allow the production of a more scientific and relevant text. The comparison with other nations and international works is useful (but could be further developed). Considering the authors' efforts to respond to the reviewers' criticisms, I now consider the article suitable for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for completing the correction on the document.

I would advise to modified Figure 1. The document is now good, but that picture so blur and difficult to read is really unpleasant to see.

Best wishes.