Investigation the Relationship between Mental Toughness and Courage Levels of Sports Sciences Faculty Students for Sustainable Performance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- In the introduction, the research team should be concise and should state the reasons for wanting to study by comparing gender, department, year, etc.

- I tried to find a clear research objective for this article but couldn't find it. (except in the abstract)

- I think that Table 3 may not need to be presented in this article.

- This article is quantitative research. Several cited statistics were used (t-test, one-way analysis of variance, correlation studies, etc.), but the sample was not random. As a result, the research results look unreliable. Therefore, the research team should find a process/explanation method to increase the credibility of the research findings.

- Mention of Sports mental toughness questionnaire,  Researchers should identify the source of Cronbach's reliability values and from whom they collected them. how much The results of the CFA analysis of (33) may not need to be mentioned. It is the duty of the readers to study further on their own.

- With reference to the Sport Courage scale, the researchers should determine the source of Cronbach's reliability values and where they were collected from. how much As for the results of the CFA analysis, upon review, it was found that references at (34) were not likely to perform CFA analysis of the tool.

- Improved the presentation method in Table 14-15 to be easier to understand.

Author Response

According to other reviewer comments;

• The context of the study was removed from the pandemic framing and the title and general focus were changed.
• Research questions were added at the end of the introduction.
• Reliability coefficients of the scales used in the original studies were removed.
• Since the internal consistency coefficient of the "Sacrifice Behaviors" sub-dimension of the Sport Courage Scale was below .60, it was removed from the scope of the scale. Before this process, information was obtained from the authors who developed the scale and it was stated that the scale supported the 4-factor structure.
• Feedback was provided that the discussion section did not examine the research findings in depth. In this context, all the findings in the research were tried to be explained in depth in the psychological context in the discussion section.
• The symbol of the mean values was changed as M instead of X.
• The date and number of the ethics committee approval were added.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, I think the study has merit but, as it is, does it still needs some extra revision and does not yet fit the requirements for publication. I think it needs further improvement, giving the chance to the authors to improve the overall flow of the study. The methodology is straightforward and coherent. Analysis is somewhat simplistic but, to the extent of the mentioned objectives, is also coherent.

Regarding the study, I outline some points which I would like the authors to address:

Introduction

One issue that easily stands out is the pandemic framing. I went through the manuscript hoping to find an argument that closed the pandemic argument but I couldn't find it. he study design, there is no direct relation with COVID apart from doing the study after the pandemic. I do recommend rethinking the title and general focus by not referring to the pandemic. In my opinion, the study doesn't need such a reference and can easily live by itself.

Materials and Methods

- There should be clear stated research questions. This would help the reader to follow the different variables under study.

- There is a large amount of redundant statements across the manuscript (e.g., page 3 with the description of the sample; page 4 with the same description; plus table 1 with the same description). The authors also opt for describing in detail the information already clear in the tables.

- Why is there the need to mention the reliability coefficients of the original scales? Shouldn't the original scale be valid from the start? If this is the case, by mentioning these values, the authors have exposed the weakness of the scales (sub scales with reliability coefficients below .60 are considered too weak and should not be valid).

- The information in Data Analysis, as it is, should be available before the Data Collection Tools, since it gets confusing mentioning some of the measures (reliability, outliers and consequent final sample) before we get to know how the authors got there.

- two methodological questions arise from this last section and need to be clear. Did the authors measure the reliability before testing for outliers? And is the descriptive statistics based on pre or post outliers?

Results

The authors start this section talking about the correlation between the levels of mental toughness and courage but most of the analysis is comparison analysis.

Results should follow the research questions (sub-headings), for better readability. There are so many sub issues that it gets confusing to follow.

In page 6, not clear what the authors mean with the '... exceeds the average in the Sport Mental Toughness Questionnaire'. Can't find this value... Again in page 7 (Courage scale).

Instead of mentioning, again and again, the tests used (e.g. ANOVA, etc.), the authors should, in text, opt for reporting the statistics (e.g. F and p values for ANOVA).

Homogeneity of variances of each sub issue should be referred in the data analysis sub section.

Discussion and Conclusion:

Again, to me there is no direct relationship between the pandemic and the study.

Overall, the discussion rarely explores in depth the findings. Oppositely, it simply compares results with other studies lacking, imho, a more deeper reflection with  psychological implications.

Minor issues:

- mean values should be mentioned as M not X

- across the manuscript, the authors sometimes mention, for example, values of 0.88 and .32 (attention to the unit case)

- there are too many tables across the study. I recommend collapsing some (e.g., table 1 and 3; table 2 and 4) for better readability.

- there is no number for the Ethics Committee approval

Good overall English. Final proofread by native speaker would be advisable.

Author Response

According to other reviewer comments;

• Table 3 has been removed from the article.
• In our study, we used convenience sampling and acknowledged its limitations, explaining our choice based on feasibility and resource constraints. We also discussed potential biases and compared our findings with other studies to demonstrate external validity. In the revised manuscript, we explicitly addressed the conclusions and insights that can be drawn despite the sampling limitations, thereby addressing the reviewer's concerns and hoping to meet the journal's standards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for addressing most of my concerns regarding your first version. Although I think the manuscript could follow a different structural frame for better readability, I think you have addressed most of my comments in a positive way.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for the insightful comments and suggestions. We made all possible changes that were suggested and detailed the changes in the table below. We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments on our paper. We would like to thank you again for your valuable time and insight to strengthen our paper.

Yours truly,

Corresponding author on behalf of the authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf