The Relevance of General Spatial Anticipation Skills for Basketball Referees

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to the authors

-The authors presented interesting topic “The relevance of general spatial anticipation skills for referees”. However, I think the authors should have more newer citations throughout the manuscript and not only having the same citations used throughout the paper. Please find specific recommendation below

-Authors should provide some details how the participants were recruited in the abstract.

-I suggest that authors used relationship or association instead of correlation throughout the study

How was the reliability and validity conducted? the reliability and validity is very important, authors need to analyze the reliability and validity of the data.

Research Purpose and Hypotheses

- Since this is a hypotheses testing, I recommend including the relationships of the variables and how they are related to one another (include citation of previous studies). 

-       In the beginning of the discussion there is a minor error.

Implications

-This study should include theoretical implications and practical implications section and state how this study contributes to theory and practice? 

Limitation and future study

-This study should also include a section “limitations and future study”

Author Response

Please see attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this study. The subject is interesting and I think it deserves readers' attention. I believe that this manuscript needs some major revisions, but has the potential to be published in the future.

To increase the quality of the manuscript, I have some recommendations:

Title should contain the type of the examined sport and name of the country.

The methods section should be precisely described, a special emphasis on the selection of referees in the three group. Did Authors use inclusion criteria?

Authors should add limitations of the research into the Discussion section.

What is about the generalizability of the results?

Author Response

Please see attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors:

Great job on the improvement of the manuscript. However, there is still one part that needs to be done and that is the validity analysis. Reliability itself is not enough to indicate the quality of the data. Please include a validity analysis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx