Variations in Personality Traits Among Top Judo Referees from 2018 to 2022 Based on Gender Differences

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper regards an important topic that had not yet been an object of researches.
Personality traits amongst judo referees are consider i a well structured manner, throught profound statistics and relaying on Big five.
Results of the study are important and enable an deeper insight for judo referees personality traits. What is interesting and could lead to further research is that there is no gender difference in outcome of the results. 
There is an addition that could be added that had not been considered regarding the topic: judo is not just a sport, but a martial art as well. In order to be a referee a person must have at least 1. dan black belt, or a higher degree. Having a black belt in a martal arts influences personality traits. This is aslo important regarding gender studies as female referees are also black belt owners.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback and kind words. We appreciate your insights and the time you spent reviewing the paper. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks for allowing me to review for the Journal of Societies. It was a pleasure to read and review, and it will always be.

 

First of all, I have carefully read and reviewed the paper. Please see my comments for each relevant section of the manuscript. This manuscript aims to shed light on the Personality Traits Among Top Judo Referees. 

At first glance, the manuscript does not seem well written in English. There are grammatical errors and even unfinished sentences throughout the text. The introduction is not well established throughout the text, especially in the problem statement; the authors give too many details about Judo but not enough details about the personality traits, especially in relation to referring to Judo. 

 

In method section, authors need to give more details of measurement tools and procedure of the study. Another issue in the method section: I wonder what the inclusion and exclusion criteria, respectively, and were any confounder variables that may affect the results of the current study. 

 

As a result, please increase the readability of the tables by categorizing the number of questions. 

The discussion and conclusion are the strong part of the manuscript. Authors need to discuss in details such personality traits about decision making for referees.

Similarly, changes could be made to how the discussion covers topics related to the research questions to achieve greater consistency throughout the paper. I appreciate that the suggested changes here can be complex/clunky and challenging to implement with potential research questions. Perhaps consider amalgamating some of them (by differentiating dependent and independent variables to create a more concise (but slightly broader) set of research questions? 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language can be improved. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We appreciate the constructive feedback provided, and we have addressed each point in detail in the revised submission. Please find below our responses to the specific:

 

At first glance, the manuscript does not seem well written in English. There are grammatical errors and even unfinished sentences throughout the text.  – We proofread the article. Thank you for your comment.

 

The introduction is not well established throughout the text, especially in the problem statement; the authors give too many details about Judo but not enough details about the personality traits, especially in relation to referring to Judo. – thank you for your valuable comment. In Introduction
We have reorganized the Introduction section following the reviewers' suggestions. A new introduction has been prepared.

 

In method section, authors need to give more details of measurement tools and procedure of the study. Another issue in the method section: I wonder what the inclusion and exclusion criteria, respectively, and were any confounder variables that may affect the results of the current study. – In Methods, we have added more details regarding the methodology, including information about the sample, how it was collected, and the criteria used to select participants for the research. (please see red-colored text).

 

Discussion and Conclusion
As was recommended, We added a new paragraph to the Discussion and Conclusion section. (please see red-colored text).

 

We believe that the changes we have made have strengthened the manuscript, and we look forward to hearing from you regarding the next steps.

 

Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Maja Meško

On behalf of all the authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article has been substantially improved since its first submission. The article's aims are far more concise and are now easy to follow in the results and discussion. My methodological concerns have been addressed with clear and adequate inclusion/exclusion criteria. The omission of abbreviations greatly aids readability and improvement. I commend the authors for their depth of structural changes and willingness to implement my recommendations during the peer review. My sincere apologies for the workload that must have been created. I can recommend this article to be accepted in its current form, but as I spotted some wordings, authors must go through the final read during the proofing stage. Thanks and best regards,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This article has been substantially improved since its first submission. The article's aims are far more concise and are now easy to follow in the results and discussion. My methodological concerns have been addressed with clear and adequate inclusion/exclusion criteria. The omission of abbreviations greatly aids readability and improvement. I commend the authors for their depth of structural changes and willingness to implement my recommendations during the peer review. My sincere apologies for the workload that must have been created. I can recommend this article to be accepted in its current form, but as I spotted some wordings, authors must go through the final read during the proofing stage. Thanks and best regards,