Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Javier Campillo-Sánchez,
  • Francisco José Borrego-Balsalobre * and
  • Vicente Morales-Baños
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores the role of sports in achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly focusing on SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being. It assesses the positive effects of sports on health promotion, disease prevention, social inclusion, and sustainable practices. The study identifies both effective practices and challenges, and it provides recommendations for integrating sports into sustainable development strategies. Although, the study addresses important intersection between sports and sustainable development, with a clear focus on public health and SDGs, I personally cannot agree that this paper fills the gaps in knowledge on this topic.In my opinion, this topic is well-covered, but the impact on the SDG 3 as a problem is rarely addressed, focusing instead on individual aspects like health, non-communicable diseases, and social inclusion.

Introduction:

The introductory part is quite well covered, with the presentation of well-known views on the impact of sports and physical activity on general health, inclusion, economic impacts, that is, the integration of sports in the agenda of sustainable development.

The last paragraph should be the paragraph on lines 133-141.  Lines 142-173 are unnecessary in a scientific paper.

Methods and Results:

Although the authors specified a detailed methodology for the selection of papers (according to the instructions to the authors), the review is based on only seven articles from an initial pool of 940. This may not fully represent the available evidence. Expanding the inclusion criteria or reviewing excluded studies could offer more comprehensive insights.

Analyzing the selected papers shows that three are from the author's team, two are already published as review articles, and two have not appeared in top journals. The others are cross-sectional studies, which limits the ability to draw causal conclusions. All this should be emphasized as a limitation of the study

As I mentioned earlier, the two selected articles are reviews; however, the authors stated that reviews fall under the exclusion criteria (Table 2).

·         Mahindru, A.; Patil, P.; Agrawal, V. Role of Physical Activity on Mental Health and Well-Being: A Review. Cureus 2023, 514 doi:10.7759/cureus.33475.

·         Dai, J.; Menhas, R. Sustainable Development Goals, Sports and Physical Activity: The Localization of Health-Related Sustainable 526 Development Goals Through Sports in China: A Narrative Review. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 2020, 13, 1419-1430, 527 doi:10.2147/RMHP.S257844.

One of the selected studies (Csete et al., 2016) is missing from the references.

Authors stated in Abstract that this is szstematic review with meta-analysis, but meta-analysis need statistics. Meta-analysis is a systematic method that uses statistical techniques for combining results from different studies to obtain a quantitative estimate of the overall effect of a particular intervention or variable on a defined outcome.

Discussion:

Gender equality and environmental impact need deeper exploration. More robust analysis or recommendations on these themes could strengthen the narrative.

Specific comments:

Figures and tables are not formatted properly. Use the same standard. Figure headings should be below the figures.

Please review the text for any language and grammatical errors.

Figure 1 – Heading is with reference?

At certain points, there are expressions in Spanish, such as those found in Table 2 under "Criterios de Exclusión."

Finally, the limited number of studies included in this paper is a significant limitation. Only seven articles (actually five, without two reviews) were ultimately selected for analysis. Although the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria enhance quality, this small sample size may limit the generalizability and depth of the findings. Also, included studies are cross-sectional, which limits the ability to establish causal relationships between sports and their outcomes.

Author Response

Comments 1: The manuscript explores the role of sports in achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly focusing on SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being. It assesses the positive effects of sports on health promotion, disease prevention, social inclusion, and sustainable practices. The study identifies both effective practices and challenges, and it provides recommendations for integrating sports into sustainable development strategies. Although, the study addresses important intersection between sports and sustainable development, with a clear focus on public health and SDGs, I personally cannot agree that this paper fills the gaps in knowledge on this topic. In my opinion, this topic is well-covered, but the impact on the SDG 3 as a problem is rarely addressed, focusing instead on individual aspects like health, non-communicable diseases, and social inclusion.

Response 1: The 17 SDGs of the 2030 Agenda are specified in 169 that are more specific and measurable. To verify the contribution to a specific SDG, in this case number 3, we must check which specific targets we want to contribute to (and another step would be to see through which indicators we are going to verify its contribution). This literature review focuses on those aspects of SDG 3 because they are the specific aspects of the SDG 3 targets to which sport can contribute most effectively. More specific reference has been made (lines 136-139).

Comments 2:

Introduction:

  1. The introductory part is quite well covered, with the presentation of well-known views on the impact of sports and physical activity on general health, inclusion, economic impacts, that is, the integration of sports in the agenda of sustainable development.
  2. The last paragraph should be the paragraph on lines 133-141. Lines 142-173 are unnecessary in a scientific paper.

Response 2: The indicated lines (142-173) have been removed.

Comments 3:

Methods and Results:

  1. Although the authors specified a detailed methodology for the selection of papers (according to the instructions to the authors), the review is based on only seven articles from an initial pool of 940. This may not fully represent the available evidence. Expanding the inclusion criteria or reviewing excluded studies could offer more comprehensive insights.
  2. Analysing the selected papers shows that three are from the author's team, two are already published as review articles, and two have not appeared in top journals. The others are cross-sectional studies, which limits the ability to draw causal conclusions. All this should be emphasized as a limitation of the study
  3. As I mentioned earlier, the two selected articles are reviews; however, the authors stated that reviews fall under the exclusion criteria (Table 2). 
    • Mahindru, A.; Patil, P.; Agrawal, V. Role of Physical Activity on Mental Health and Well-Being: A Review. Cureus 2023, 514 doi:10.7759/cureus.33475.
    • Dai, J.; Menhas, R. Sustainable Development Goals, Sports and Physical Activity: The Localization of Health-Related Sustainable 526 Development Goals Through Sports in China: A Narrative Review. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 2020, 13, 1419-1430, 527 doi:10.2147/RMHP.S257844.
  4. One of the selected studies (Csete et al., 2016) is missing from the references.
  5. Authors stated in Abstract that this is systematic review with meta-analysis, but meta-analysis need statistics. Meta-analysis is a systematic method that uses statistical techniques for combining results from different studies to obtain a quantitative estimate of the overall effect of a particular intervention or variable on a defined outcome.

Response 3:

  1. It must be taken into account that the global agreement on the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda is relatively recent, and not many scientific articles address this specific aspect of sport to contribute to them. Furthermore, within this topic, this review focuses on those that are specifically related to SDG 3, so the articles finally selected and relevant based on the methodology used remain that way. In any case, it has been included as a limitation of the study as suggested (lines 438-455).
  2. We have only participated in two of the selected articles (not 3). The suggested limitations of the study have been accepted and included (lines 438-455).
  3. Reviews have been eliminated as exclusion criteria (Table 2).
  4. The study by Csete et al, 2016 has been included in lines 295-301 and in the references.
  5. A systematic review of the literature has been carried out, but it is not said that it is with meta-analysis, but rather the guide that has been followed for said bibliographic review also includes the meta-analysis part.

Comments 4:

Discussion:

Gender equality and environmental impact need deeper exploration. More robust analysis or recommendations on these themes could strengthen the narrative.

Response 4: Some more lines has been included in this section in each of these two aspects to strengthen the narrative (lines 384-390 and 412-416).

Comments 5:

Specific comments:

  1. Figures and tables are not formatted properly. Use the same standard. Figure headings should be below the figures.
  2. Please review the text for any language and grammatical errors.
  3. Figure 1 – Heading is with reference?
  4. At certain points, there are expressions in Spanish, such as those found in Table 2 under "Criterios de Exclusión".
  5. Finally, the limited number of studies included in this paper is a significant limitation. Only seven articles (actually five, without two reviews) were ultimately selected for analysis. Although the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria enhance quality, this small sample size may limit the generalizability and depth of the findings. Also, included studies are cross-sectional, which limits the ability to establish causal relationships between sports and their outcomes.

Response 5:

  1. Done.
  2. Revised.
  3. Revised.
  4. Revised.
  5. It has been included in the limitations (lines 438-455).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript systematically explores the role of sport in achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals ( SDGs ), with a focus on SDG3 ( Good Health and Well-Being ). Through a systematic literature review using the PRISMA-NMA framework, examine how sport contributes to health promotion, social inclusion, economic growth and environmental sustainability. The study identified key challenges such as unfair opportunities, gender gaps and environmental impacts, and provided evidence-based recommendations for integrating sport into sustainable development policies. The topic is meaningful, and the review is also very comprehensive. It is suggested to further improve the integrity of the manuscript from the following aspects.

 

(1) In the abstract section, more specific findings and numerical data are added to strengthen the summary. 

(2) In the introduction section, more examples are used to clarify the connection between sports and specific SDGs. 

(3) Please provide additional detailed information on search strategies ( e.g., keyword combinations ) and inclusion / exclusion criteria to enhance the transparency of the scope of the review. 

(4) Conduct a more critical analysis of the limitations of the included studies and summarize future research directions.

Author Response

General comments: This manuscript systematically explores the role of sport in achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a focus on SDG3 (Good Health and Well-Being). Through a systematic literature review using the PRISMA-NMA framework, examine how sport contributes to health promotion, social inclusion, economic growth and environmental sustainability. The study identified key challenges such as unfair opportunities, gender gaps and environmental impacts, and provided evidence-based recommendations for integrating sport into sustainable development policies. The topic is meaningful, and the review is also very comprehensive. It is suggested to further improve the integrity of the manuscript from the following aspects.

Comments 1: In the abstract section, more specific findings and numerical data are added to strengthen the summary. 

Response 1: Some lines have been included (lines 18-20) to try to improve the summary in this way.

Comments 2: In the introduction section, more examples are used to clarify the connection between sports and specific SDGs. 

Response 2: Some lines have been included (lines 136-139) to try to improve the summary in this way.

Comments 3: Please provide additional detailed information on search strategies (e.g., keyword combinations) and inclusion / exclusion criteria to enhance the transparency of the scope of the review. 

Response 3: These aspects are included in tables 1 and 2 and lines 207-218.

Comments 4: Conduct a more critical analysis of the limitations of the included studies and summarize future research directions.

Response 4: A specific section on limitations and future research has been created (lines 438-455).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the corrected manuscript version, I must emphasize that the authors have made a significant effort to clarify the text and enhance its quality. Here are some minor additional comments.

Abstract:

Erase “…with meta-analysis” from line 12

Methods and Results:

Clear the text in first Exlusion criteria: remove “…, and systematic”

Figure 1. Explain what the flowchart is about I nheading. There is no need for (own elaboration).

Author Response

Thank you again for your contribution. Below we detail a series of responses to the comments made.

Comments 1:

Abstract: Erase “…with meta-analysis” from line 12

Response 1: Done

Comments 2:

Methods and Results:

Clear the text in first Exlusion criteria: remove “…, and systematic”

Response 2: Done

Comments 3:

Figure 1. Explain what the flowchart is about I nheading. There is no need for (own elaboration).

Response 3: Added an explanation/description of the flowchart in l nheading. Own elaboration has been removed.