Examining the Roles and Consequent Decision-Making Processes of High-Level Strength and Conditioning Coaches
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, thank you for this paper. I believe that this is a very important subject for coaches. I also coach, and was pleased to read this paper.
I must admit that I was a bit disappointed with the abstract. I let 2 of my fellow coaches read the title and the abstract and since English is their second language, they had trouble with the sentences in lines 15 to 18. They were able to understand the title, and this interested them, but had trouble with the 2 sentences above. My suggestion is to simplify these 2 sentences.
Please think of your audience, and making this paper as readable and direct as possible. In general I feel that the paper is very well written. The methods section is easy to read. Thanks!
I have a few minor comments which are in the PDF. I added most of my comments directly to the attached PDF.
Methods: I am not very familiar with qualitative studies, I think that 10 coaches may be a small number. I know contacting and interviewing the coaches is a lot of work, but is it possible to increase the number of coaches? 10 seems like a small sample.
Is it possible to quantify the coaches' responses? You give some responses, but the reader does not know if 1 or all coaches gave a similar response. Perhaps you can give the number of coaches who gave a similar response or idea. I noticed that some coaches were not cited (HLC 1 to HLC 10) and some were cited more than once. As I said, I am not familiar with qualitative research, so I may be wrong here, in terms of trying to get some sort of quantifiable data.
I mentioned it in the PDF, but I would really like to see some figures, with a task diagram and perhaps even an exploded task diagram with more details....
This is only me thinking out loud, but you mentioned athletes' needs. Would it be interesting to briefly discuss Maslow's hierarchy of needs? I know that his work is dated, but perhaps still useful? This is only an idea! Also, as a side note you may be interested in "Transcend: the New Science of Self-Actualization" by Scott Barry Kaufman. I have no affiliation with the author or the book, but heard of this through a podcast (the psychology podcast) by the author - who interviewed Pete Carroll, an NFL coach. Not a plug, I have no hidden agenda here, but very interesting for coaches.
In general, I believe that this paper is important and like it. I am not sure how much one can make conclusions when the reader does not know how many coaches "agreed" on certain ideas or cognitions. And I am unsure aobut 10 coaches as a sample size. If I am wrong here, I humbly accept this and say that I then like the paper as is with minor changes.
Thank you for your work!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to read and review our article. I have attached a responses document to demonstrate the actions taken in response.
Best Wishes
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. This is a really novel insight and method applied to S&C. The paper was very well written with excellent insights for research and practice. Based on the above I only have minor comments to address and congratulate the authors on an excellent piece of research.
Minor comments
1. I feel too many abbreviations are used throughout the paper. I would recommend reducing the number used to help the reader
2. Abstract - Line 8 – access or assess?
3. Table 2 - Some interesting findings here. I think these are very closely related to the WHO and WHAT domains of the Coach DM framework. These seem to be methods of understanding athletes and demands of the sport to a greater extent
4. There seems some repetition between quotes used in text and in tables. Is this necessary?
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to read and review the document. Please find attached a document to outline the responses made to your points.
Best wishes
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor,
Firstly, thanks for allowing me to review this manuscript. We have carefully reviewed all sections of the paper (societies-1263877).
The objective of this study was to qualitatively access and examine the knowledge and on-task cognitions of high-level coaches (HLCs) within Strength and Conditioning (S & C). The results highlighted that HLCs acknowledge and value the quality of their relationships with those they interact with. Despite their years of experience, however, identifying, interpreting and responding to individuals were considered to be difficult cognitive elements. This study contributes to the literature regarding performance societies and recommendations are offered regarding how Strength and Conditioning Coaches (SCCs) can better operationalise their cognitions. For practical applications, evidence is offered for the importance of interpersonal and social factors in SCCs’ relationships with athletes and coaches. Incorporation of strategies to support versatile, dynamic decision-making within future coach development materials will support more impactful performances by SCCs at all stages of the coaching process.
With respect to the manuscript, the title is according to the investigation, the introduction provides sufficient background and includes all relevant references, the research design was appropriated, the methods were adequately described, the results were clearly presented, and the conclusions were supported by the results. For all the previous comments, my decision is accepted in the current form for publication in Societies.
Congratulations on very good and valuable work.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to read and review our article. Your feedback was most appreciated and we are glad you were happy with it.
Best wishes
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
try to correct some parts of the paper according to comments.
Regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to read and review our article. We appreciate the points made and have attached a document to outline the responses taken.
Best wishes
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
The manuscript is very confusing and unclear. Although in line with the journal's purpose, it appears badly set up and needs careful review.
Authors should follow the instruction to prepare a Manuscript provided by the journal.
There are not the authors' name nor the affiliation.
The citations must be placed in square brackets [ ].
Tables have to be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited.
Before submitting the manuscript, please be aware that it is correctly fixed according to the journal's guidelines.
Abstract
The abstract section is not an accurate summary of the paper; it is more a mini-section of the introduction. It is suggested to rewrite it in order to provide sufficient information about the paper.
Introduction
27-29 from "These" to "sport settings". It would be more appropriate to start this period with:
29-30 Why Participation and Performance have the capitalized P ?
33-36 from "The" to "invest in them" you need a citation to support this statement.
70-73 from "importantly" to "coaches" you need a citation to support this statement.
72-75 from "thus" to "environments" you need a citation also here.
Materials and methods
Is the presence of 1 female coach relevant? Because 1 over 9 males is not significant, authors should remove this subject's data or talk about 10 coaches without pointing to the sex since the sex difference does not provide any further information in the paper.
Results
Results are messy. They are not clearly described, so the reader could not understand the scientific importance of your work. Consider rewriting it in a more straightforward version.
Conclusions
The conclusion does not provide a summary of the whole study. Tables should not be cited in the conclusion section. Authors should highlight better the scientific/clinical relevance of your work. Please provide a clear message of the importance of this paper in the scientific community.
References
References have to be fixed correctly. Many of them do not have the year of publication in bold type. The average year of publications is far behind. Authors should update it to more recent articles.
Tables:
Table 1 should be divided into two tables. The first one reporting the subjects' sociodemographic characteristics, the second one about their work experience (from athletes coached, etc.)
Table 2. If "Speak / Connect with the athlete" is the topic of this area of questions, it should be placed at the top of the table rather than close to the text as this is not clear.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to read and review our article. Please find attached a document to outline the responses to each point.
Best wishes
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank You for Your responses - I am satisfied.
Best regards
Reviewer 5 Report
Check the line spacing between page 1 and page 2.
Thank you for following my suggestion.
Just one tip, as pointed by MDPI guidelines, the table should be immediately close to the respective paragraph, so tables 1 and 2 should be placed before the 2.2 paragraph. However, if you prefer to leave it at the end of the section Materials and methods, keep it this way.
