The Mediating Role of Teacher Efficacy Between Academic Self-Concept and Teacher Identity Among Pre-Service Physical Education Teachers: Is There a Gender Difference?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations to the authors on their excellent work and for the innovative approach of their study. It’s important to keep sex differences in mind, and this research contributes significantly to that understanding. On another note, I would only suggest a few minor formatting improvements to ensure consistency throughout the document.

From line 33 to 64:check the style citations because you forgot to remove the complete citetion. Leave just the number.

Please review the punctuation in the sentence on line 61 to ensure clarity and correct structure. You have left the citation between two dots.

Please review the terminology used for SEM throughout the manuscript. In the abstract, it is referred to as "structural equation multigroup analysis," while in line 151, it is mentioned as "structural equation model." Consistent usage will help maintain clarity for readers.

Please also review the use of abbreviations for consistency. For instance, in line 251, "structural equation multigroup analysis" is spelled out, while in line 253, "SEM" is used. Ensuring consistency throughout the manuscript will enhance readability and clarity.

In line 306, please ensure that the author’s name is included in citation 38, as it currently appears incomplete.

Author Response

Comment 1. Congratulations to the authors on their excellent work and for the innovative approach of their study. It’s important to keep sex differences in mind, and this research contributes significantly to that understanding. On another note, I would only suggest a few minor formatting improvements to ensure consistency throughout the document.

Response: Thank you so much for your fine appreciation.

Comment 2. From line 33 to 64: check the style citations because you forgot to remove the complete citetion. Leave just the number.

Response: Thank you so much, the style citations has been revised from line 33 to 64.

Comment 3. Please review the punctuation in the sentence on line 61 to ensure clarity and correct structure. You have left the citation between two dots.

Response: The sentence on line 61 has been revised, one dot has been deleted to ensure clarity and correct structure.

Comment 4. Please review the terminology used for SEM throughout the manuscript. In the abstract, it is referred to as "structural equation multigroup analysis," while in line 151, it is mentioned as "structural equation model." Consistent usage will help maintain clarity for readers.

Response: Thank you so much for your appreciation. This text has been revised throughout the manuscript.

Comment 5. Please also review the use of abbreviations for consistency. For instance, in line 251, "structural equation multigroup analysis" is spelled out, while in line 253, "SEM" is used. Ensuring consistency throughout the manuscript will enhance readability and clarity.

Response: Thank you so much for your appreciation. This text has been revised throughout the manuscript to ensure consistency throughout the manuscript.

Comment 6. In line 306, please ensure that the author’s name is included in citation 38, as it currently appears

Response: In line 306, the author’s name has been included in citation 38.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations to the authors for the study. It is fit for publication. The theoretical approach underpins the hypothesis and objectives of the study and analyses the main knowledge on the subject. The methodology is very interesting, detailed and well thought out. The results are clearly presented, both descriptively and visually, and the conclusions are clear. The practical implications bring great clarity to the article.

 

Author Response

Comment 1. Congratulations to the authors for the study. It is fit for publication. The theoretical approach underpins the hypothesis and objectives of the study and analyses the main knowledge on the subject. The methodology is very interesting, detailed and well thought out. The results are clearly presented, both descriptively and visually, and the conclusions are clear. The practical implications bring great clarity to the article.

Response: We would like to thank you for your kind comments.