Game Changer: Harnessing Artificial Intelligence in Sport for Development
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Author,
Overall, this was a well-written manuscript. Everything is very clear from start to finish. I honestly found no areas that needed major improvement. Well-done.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you for the continued engagement with our paper and the further comments provided. We have made further improvements based on this – which are marked in blue within the paper – and have provided point-by-point responses below.
Best regards
The Authors
Reviewer 1
|
Comment |
Response |
|
Overall, this was a well-written manuscript. Everything is very clear from start to finish. I honestly found no areas that needed major improvement. Well-done. . |
Thank you for your time and kind comments! |
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article addresses an emerging and highly relevant topic within the field of Sport for Development (SFD), analyzing the opportunities and challenges posed by artificial intelligence (AI) in this context.
However, there are areas that could be improved to enhance clarity, depth, and academic rigor:
The abstract provides an adequate summary of the study but could be refined for precision and fluency. Some sentences, such as the one describing the study’s purpose and methodology, could be reworded to avoid ambiguity. Additionally, it would be beneficial for the abstract to include more specific recommendations on the use of AI in SFD, as the discussion section already presents valuable insights.
The theoretical framework is well-grounded with key references but would benefit from a broader contextualization of AI applications in related fields, such as education or sports management. While the paper references studies discussing the impact of digitalization in SFD, the argument could be strengthened with specific examples of previous AI applications in sports or community organizations. Furthermore, given the interdisciplinary nature of the topic, integrating additional theoretical perspectives could help explain how technology influences organizational and pedagogical dynamics within SFD programs.
The methodology is one of the strongest aspects of the paper, as it provides a detailed description of the data collection and analysis process. However, it could be further enriched by discussing the sample size and potential biases in participant selection. While using qualitative surveys with experts is a valid approach, it would be helpful to reflect on what types of organizations and professionals were predominantly represented and how this may have shaped the findings. Additionally, a brief mention of strategies used to ensure the reliability and validity of the thematic analysis, particularly in the coding process, would strengthen the methodological transparency.
Regarding the results, the identification of the three main themes (Keeping Things in Context, Bridging or Widening the Gap, and Education and Internal Control) is clear and relevant. However, this section could be further enhanced by incorporating more direct quotes from respondents to better illustrate the perspectives gathered. It would also be useful to quantify certain patterns in the responses—for instance, by indicating how many respondents identified specific risks or benefits. This would provide a clearer understanding of the prevalence of each concern within the sector.
The discussion and conclusion effectively integrate the study’s findings but could be strengthened by making a stronger connection to existing literature. In particular, a deeper comparison with previous studies on AI’s impact on community development and sports management would add depth to the analysis. Additionally, emphasizing the practical impact of the findings would be valuable by offering concrete strategies to mitigate AI-related risks in SFD. Since the paper already highlights the potential for a growing digital divide between organizations with varying levels of resources, expanding the discussion on the political and structural implications of this disparity—and potential governance solutions—would be beneficial.
This article makes a valuable contribution to the literature on SFD and technology, but there is room for improvement in terms of precision, theoretical depth, and methodological clarity. Refining the abstract, expanding the theoretical framework with concrete examples, strengthening the methodological discussion, and enriching the results with more quotes and quantifiable data would significantly enhance the study’s impact. A more practice-oriented conclusion with actionable recommendations would make the findings more useful for professionals and organizations in the field.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you for the continued engagement with our paper and the further comments provided. We have made further improvements based on this – which are marked in blue within the paper – and have provided point-by-point responses below.
Best regards
The Authors
Reviewer 2
|
Comment |
Response |
|
The abstract provides an adequate summary of the study but could be refined for precision and fluency. Some sentences, such as the one describing the study’s purpose and methodology, could be reworded to avoid ambiguity. Additionally, it would be beneficial for the abstract to include more specific recommendations on the use of AI in SFD, as the discussion section already presents valuable insights. |
The abstract has been reformulated to highlight the methods and results more clearly. |
|
The theoretical framework is well-grounded with key references but would benefit from a broader contextualization of AI applications in related fields, such as education or sports management. While the paper references studies discussing the impact of digitalization in SFD, the argument could be strengthened with specific examples of previous AI applications in sports or community organizations. Furthermore, given the interdisciplinary nature of the topic, integrating additional theoretical perspectives could help explain how technology influences organizational and pedagogical dynamics within SFD programs. |
More concrete use-cases are presented along with additional critical reflections extracted from the literature. |
|
The methodology is one of the strongest aspects of the paper, as it provides a detailed description of the data collection and analysis process. However, it could be further enriched by discussing the sample size and potential biases in participant selection. While using qualitative surveys with experts is a valid approach, it would be helpful to reflect on what types of organizations and professionals were predominantly represented and how this may have shaped the findings. Additionally, a brief mention of strategies used to ensure the reliability and validity of the thematic analysis, particularly in the coding process, would strengthen the methodological transparency. |
Thank you for the comments. The initial expert list and final sample achieved are mentioned, as are the types of individuals targeted and why.
As for reliability and validity – I use Braun and Clarke’s Thematic Analysis, which is grounded in a qualitative, constructivist paradigm, where meaning is co-constructed rather than objectively measured—thus, reliability, validity, and quantification are not epistemologically relevant to this approach. |
|
Regarding the results, the identification of the three main themes (Keeping Things in Context, Bridging or Widening the Gap, and Education and Internal Control) is clear and relevant. However, this section could be further enhanced by incorporating more direct quotes from respondents to better illustrate the perspectives gathered. It would also be useful to quantify certain patterns in the responses—for instance, by indicating how many respondents identified specific risks or benefits. This would provide a clearer understanding of the prevalence of each concern within the sector. |
The results have been expanded with further quotes.
As for quantity – I use Braun and Clarke’s Thematic Analysis, which is grounded in a qualitative, constructivist paradigm, where meaning is co-constructed rather than objectively measured—thus, reliability, validity, and quantification are not epistemologically relevant to this approach. |
|
The discussion and conclusion effectively integrate the study’s findings but could be strengthened by making a stronger connection to existing literature. In particular, a deeper comparison with previous studies on AI’s impact on community development and sports management would add depth to the analysis. Additionally, emphasizing the practical impact of the findings would be valuable by offering concrete strategies to mitigate AI-related risks in SFD. Since the paper already highlights the potential for a growing digital divide between organizations with varying levels of resources, expanding the discussion on the political and structural implications of this disparity—and potential governance solutions—would be beneficial. |
The discussion has been expanded with not only limitations, but some thoughts about how AI may influence human connection in SFD. |
|
This article makes a valuable contribution to the literature on SFD and technology, but there is room for improvement in terms of precision, theoretical depth, and methodological clarity. Refining the abstract, expanding the theoretical framework with concrete examples, strengthening the methodological discussion, and enriching the results with more quotes and quantifiable data would significantly enhance the study’s impact. A more practice-oriented conclusion with actionable recommendations would make the findings more useful for professionals and organizations in the field. |
Thank you for the comments and feedback! |
