Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses an important and timely topic related to equine welfare in dressage horses, focusing on stress-related behaviors across competition levels and the implementation of the FEI noseband measuring device (FNMD). While the topic is highly relevant and the dataset potentially valuable, the manuscript in its current form presents substantial methodological, analytical, and interpretative limitations that preclude robust scientific conclusions.

Major concerns:

1. Study design and validity of the main hypothesis:
   The central conclusion that noseband tightness is not correlated with stress-related behaviors is not sufficiently supported by the study design. Nearly all horses included in the study had nosebands fitted within FEI regulations, resulting in minimal variability of the “noseband tightness” variable. Under these conditions, correlation or lack of effect cannot be reliably assessed. The absence of contrast in the exposure variable represents a fundamental design limitation and should be explicitly acknowledged. Conclusions should be reframed accordingly.

2. Descriptive data versus inferential interpretation:
   The study is primarily descriptive; however, several conclusions imply causal or mechanistic relationships (e.g., effects of noseband tightening, bridle type, or inevitability of stress). These interpretations go beyond what can be inferred from the presented observational data and should be substantially moderated or removed.

3. Statistical analysis:
   The statistical methodology is insufficiently described. Statements such as “no correlation was found” are made without clearly specifying the statistical tests used, assumptions, significance thresholds, p-values, or confidence intervals. Furthermore, no multivariable analyses are provided to control for major confounders such as competition level, bridle type, or rider experience. This limits the scientific robustness of the results.

4. Small sample sizes at higher competition levels:
   Very small group sizes at higher levels (e.g., Grand Prix) are used to draw relatively strong conclusions regarding stress patterns and equipment effects. Given the limited statistical power, these findings should be interpreted with extreme caution and clearly framed as exploratory observations.

5. Normative and opinion-based language:
   Several sections, particularly in the Introduction and Discussion, contain normative or value-based statements regarding equestrian sport, training practices, and welfare (e.g., references to “unnaturalness,” inevitability of stress, or global solutions). Such language is not appropriate for an original research article and should be replaced with neutral, data-driven scientific phrasing.

6. Results presentation and figures:
   The manuscript contains an excessive number of pie charts that largely duplicate information already presented in tables and text. This redundancy reduces clarity rather than enhancing it. Figures should be substantially reduced and reorganized, and figure legends should include clear explanations of the analyses performed.

Overall assessment:
Although the topic is relevant and the dataset may have value, major revision is required. The authors should reconsider the framing of their research question, strengthen and clearly report the statistical analyses, substantially moderate the conclusions, and revise the manuscript to adhere to the standards of scientific rigor and objectivity expected for publication in Animals.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires substantial language editing to improve clarity, objectivity, and scientific tone. Several passages adopt an essay-like or rhetorical style that is not suitable for an original research article.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the thorough and constructive feedback. All major concerns have now been addressed as follows:

1. Study design and lack of variability in noseband tightness

We fully agree that conclusions regarding noseband tightness could not be supported due to minimal variability. We have now explicitly acknowledged this as a design limitation in the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. All statements implying absence of effect have been reframed to emphasize that tightness could not be meaningfully evaluated, and findings are interpreted solely descriptively.

2. Descriptive data vs. causal interpretation

We have removed or substantially softened all causal or mechanistic language. Conclusions regarding equipment effects and stress have been rewritten to emphasize associations only, not causation. Normative statements have been eliminated.

3. Statistical analysis

We have expanded the description of statistical procedures, now specifying all tests used, significance thresholds, assumptions, and p‑values. We also removed absolute statements such as “no correlation was found” and replaced them with precise statistical outputs. We acknowledge that multivariable modelling was not feasible based on dataset structure and clarify this limitation explicitly.

4. Small sample sizes at higher levels

The relatively small number of horse–rider combinations at the highest competition levels (S*, S**, GP) reflects the nature of national-level competitions, where participation in elite classes is generally limited. Unlike international FEI events, national competitions are characterized by a broad base of entries at lower and medium levels and a substantially smaller number of combinations competing at the highest levels.

5. Normative and opinion‑based language

All value‑based or normative statements (e.g., concerning “unnaturalness” or inevitability of stress) have been removed or rewritten in neutral scientific terminology. The manuscript now follows an objective, data‑driven tone throughout.

6. Results presentation and figures

We have substantially reduced the number of pie charts and left only those that are showing important informations nor clear from the Tables and removed redundant graphics. Figures have been reorganized for clarity, and all figure legends have been rewritten to include clearer descriptions of the underlying analyses.

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments, which have significantly improved the clarity and scientific rigor of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for conducting this study and writing the paper - it provides an interesting perspective on the effectiveness of approaches that are meant to improve welfare - it is good that this is being scrutinised. I only have  few comments:

Line 45 - "According to equine behavioral scientists, there are four methods of motivation" - this isn't just according to equine behavioural scientists but behavioural science in general. 

Line 56 - "Before the horse effectively associates the rider’s aid with the desired reaction, training involves a phase where the horse expresses discomfort with the applied pressure. This discomfort or stress is often manifested by tail swishing, mouth opening, attempts to evade bit pressure, and other behaviors. " This is a bit confusing as it's not just during training that these signs are seen. 

Line 61 " Animals experiencing stress may display abnormal behaviors" This is true but they also might display normal behaviours of stress - clarify if mean truly abnormal behaviours not usually seen in the equine ethogram or seen out of context etc. 

Line 71 - "In an unfamiliar environment, where a horse as a prey animal naturally wants to flee (its instinctive reaction), it must perform movements combining strength-based gymnastics with dynamic elements, all in response to delicate rider aids".  Avoid use of 'its', here and throughout article, by saying 'the species-specific instinctive reaction' or reword to 'In an unfamiliar environment, a horse's natural instinctive reaction as a prey animal is to flee to seek safety' etc. This only touches on the welfare concerns. Also is the fear of what the human might be should the horse not respond to light commands (human would likely escalate pressure), the fact the horse is not with conspecifics they are used to (stable herd), that there are noises and smells that they are unlikely to have been habituated to, that they are likely staying in unfamilar place and therefore sleep deprived, that they are under stimulus control and not able to perform natural behaviour, that they are often kept without free access to forage around competitions and so on. 

Line 142 - I'm not sure 'persuade' is the right word here " It also suggests that moreadvanced equestri an nations may have more sophisticated methods to persuade horses to cooperate, even at the cost of their comfort". The horse is forced through mental or physical pressure to comply. 

Please note that I am unable to critically evaluate the stats elements of this paper as that is outside my level of expertise. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Mostly this is fine but in places is a little 'odd' and so if it could be read through by a native speaker it would improve it

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments, which have significantly improved the clarity and scientific rigor of the manuscript.

We thank the reviewer for the constructive and thoughtful comments. All points have been addressed as follows:

Line 45:
We agree and have corrected the phrasing to reflect that the four quadrants of operant conditioning originate from general behavioral science, not only equine behavioral science.

Line 56:
We clarified that conflict behaviors such as tail swishing or mouth opening can occur not only during the learning phase, but at any point when the horse reacts to pressure or aversive stimuli during ridden work.

Line 61:
We revised the wording to differentiate between abnormal behaviors (outside the typical ethogram or out of context) and normal behavioral indicators of stress. The sentence has been rewritten for accuracy.

Line 71:
We removed the use of “its” and replaced it with species‑appropriate neutral phrasing.
We also expanded this section slightly to briefly acknowledge additional potential stressors in competition settings (novel environment, loss of conspecific contact, restricted forage, sleep disruption, unfamiliar stimuli).

Line 142:
We replaced “persuade” with more precise terminology indicating that compliance may be achieved through pressure‑based aids, avoiding any misleading implication of voluntary cooperation.

We appreciate the reviewer’s insights and believe these revisions have improved clarity, scientific accuracy, and neutrality of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic in equine welfare and provides original observational data across multiple national competition levels. The study design is appropriate, the methods are sound, and the results are clearly presented.

Minor revisions are recommended to improve clarity and consistency. In particular, the Introduction would benefit from more concise framing and clearer articulation of the study rationale. Some passages throughout the manuscript would also benefit from careful language editing to improve scientific tone and readability.

No additional experiments or analyses are required. The conclusions are supported by the presented results.

Author Response

The reviewer did not request any specific corrections. As stated in the review, “The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic in equine welfare and provides original observational data across multiple national competition levels. The study design is appropriate, the methods are sound, and the results are clearly presented.” Since the reviewer considered the manuscript clearly presented, and the authors are not native English speakers, we have kept the Introduction unchanged.