Characteristics of the Physical Literacy of Preschool Children

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is truly a pleasure for me to read such an interesting, comprehensive, coherent, and engaging manuscript on a topic that has rarely been studied. Below, I present my comments and suggestions.

In the introduction, the manuscript provides a strong and well-argued justification for the issue addressed, supported by recent and relevant literature. However, while the importance of the study is mentioned, the research question could be formulated more explicitly to better emphasize the objective of the work.

In the methodology, a rigorous approach is used, following the PRISMA framework, with well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. However, it would be essential to provide more information on how the quality of the selected studies was assessed. Additionally, there is no mention of whether a second reviewer was involved to minimize potential biases in study selection, which I believe should be included and justified. Furthermore, I recommend adding a brief explanation of Tables 1, 2, and 3 in the text to enhance the clarity of the presented data.

In the results section, the organization is clear and structured according to different categories. However, some categories, such as motivation and confidence, are mentioned without further explanation. Each of these should be thoroughly explained to provide a more comprehensive analysis.

In the discussion, it would be valuable to include a more detailed analysis of how the findings could be applied in educational practice or intervention programs, which would strengthen the study’s relevance.

Finally, in the conclusion, there is no mention of any study limitations, an aspect that I consider important to include in order to better contextualize the results and suggest future research directions.

Author Response

Comment 1: In the introduction, - while the importance of the study is mentioned, the research question could be formulated more explicitly to better emphasize the objective of the work.

Response: We agree with your recommendations, so we are making changes to the introductory part. The introductory part has been restructured and expanded to provide more clarity on the research questions. The wording of the questions was reviewed for relevance to the purpose of the study and clarifying additions were made.

Comment 2: In the methodology, It would be essential to provide more information on how the quality of the selected studies was assessed. Additionally, there is no mention of whether a second reviewer was involved to minimize potential biases in study selection, which I believe should be included and justified. Furthermore, I recommend adding a brief explanation of Tables 1, 2, and 3 in the text to enhance the clarity of the presented data.

Respone: We agree with your comments. The methodology section was updated to explain the steps of the selection procedure and the inclusion criteria and another researcher  has been mentioned. The sections in Tables 1,2,3 have been expanded in the Introduction and Methodology sections, linking them to the research questions.

Comment 3 :In the results section, the organization is clear and structured according to different categories. However, some categories, such as motivation and confidence, are mentioned without further explanation. Each of these should be thoroughly explained to provide a more comprehensive analysis.

Response: Thank you for your question. In answer to your question, we can explain why the motivation and belief elements are not explained in Tables 1 and 3 of the results. The results section does not explain the elements of motivation and confidence, as the studies included in the review did not identify their manifestations and influencing factors at the preschool age identified.

Comment 4: In the discussion, it would be valuable to include a more detailed analysis of how the findings could be applied in educational practice or intervention programs, which would strengthen the study’s relevance.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions, we agree with your recommendation. In the discussion part, we included  insights related to preschool education and its role in the development of the preschool child's physical literacy. In yellow bold in the manuscript are highlighted the parts of the discussion that underline the importance of pre-school education in the development of physical exercise

Comment 5: In the conclusion, there is no mention of any study limitations, an aspect that I consider important to include in order to better contextualize the results and suggest future research directions. 

Response: Based on the reviewers' suggestions, we have created a section 4.6. on constraints that could affect the outcome of the review.

Thank you for your valuable and structured suggestions, they helped us to develop and adapt the content of our publication to the framework of early childhood education. We sincerely hope that our work will contribute to the field by providing insights into the characteristics of physical exercise in pre-school children.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of Manuscript: "Actual Characteristics of the Physical Literacy of Preschool Children"

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. While the study demonstrates a good initial intent and raises some interesting points, significant revisions are recommended to enhance its clarity, rigor, and overall suitability for publication.

Introduction:

The introduction currently lacks clear topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph, making it difficult for the reader to follow the intended focus of each section. Furthermore, the logical flow between paragraphs needs improvement to ensure a cohesive narrative leading to the study's aims. I strongly suggest a thorough re-evaluation and rewrite of the entire introduction to address these issues.

Specific Comments:

• Line 103 – 105: I recommend revising the sentence to: "This study aims to deductively overview the manifestations of physical literacy in preschool children and the factors impacting it across different age stages, systematizing these into four domains based on their elements." This revised phrasing appears to offer better clarity and conciseness.
• Line 107 – 108: There seems to be inconsistency in terminology. The text uses "preschool age stage," while your table titles suggest a different term. Please carefully review the entire manuscript and ensure consistent use of either "preschool age stage" or "preschool period" (or your preferred term) to avoid reader confusion.

Methods:

The manuscript's Methods section requires further detail regarding the data presented in Appendix A. Please provide a clear explanation of all the numbers included in the appendix and explicitly detail the process through which the final sample size of n = 26 was derived.

Results:

The current Results section needs significant restructuring for clarity. It is recommended that the tables presenting your findings be moved to this section. Furthermore, the Results section should focus solely on reporting what was reviewed and providing a concise summary of the findings from the reviewed studies. All inductive reasoning and interpretative statements should be reserved for the Discussion section. The distinction between the Results and Discussion sections is currently unclear, necessitating a major rewrite to separate these sections effectively.

Discussion and Conclusion:

The manuscript identifies three research questions. However, it is not explicitly clear how these questions are addressed and answered within the Discussion and Conclusion sections. Please ensure that the discussion directly relates back to the research questions and that the conclusion provides clear and specific answers to each. 

Appendix A (Page 22):

Upon reviewing Appendix A, there appears to be a potential numerical error. For instance, if the initial sample size was n = 62, and 12 cases were excluded, the resulting sample size should be n = 50, not n = 62 as currently presented. Please double-check all the numbers in Appendix A for accuracy.

In conclusion, while the topic of this manuscript is relevant and the intent is clear, substantial revisions are necessary to address the identified issues related to clarity, flow, methodological detail, and the distinction between results and discussion. I believe that with these major revisions, the manuscript has the potential to become a valuable contribution to the field.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Review of Manuscript: "Actual Characteristics of the Physical Literacy of Preschool Children"

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. While the study demonstrates a good initial intent and raises some interesting points, significant revisions are recommended to enhance its clarity, rigor, and overall suitability for publication.

Introduction:

The introduction currently lacks clear topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph, making it difficult for the reader to follow the intended focus of each section. Furthermore, the logical flow between paragraphs needs improvement to ensure a cohesive narrative leading to the study's aims. I strongly suggest a thorough re-evaluation and rewrite of the entire introduction to address these issues. 

Specific Comments:

• Line 103 – 105: I recommend revising the sentence to: "This study aims to deductively overview the manifestations of physical literacy in preschool children and the factors impacting it across different age stages, systematizing these into four domains based on their elements." This revised phrasing appears to offer better clarity and conciseness.
• Line 107 – 108: There seems to be inconsistency in terminology. The text uses "preschool age stage," while your table titles suggest a different term. Please carefully review the entire manuscript and ensure consistent use of either "preschool age stage" or "preschool period" (or your preferred term) to avoid reader confusion.

Methods:

The manuscript's Methods section requires further detail regarding the data presented in Appendix A. Please provide a clear explanation of all the numbers included in the appendix and explicitly detail the process through which the final sample size of n = 26 was derived.

Results:

The current Results section needs significant restructuring for clarity. It is recommended that the tables presenting your findings be moved to this section. Furthermore, the Results section should focus solely on reporting what was reviewed and providing a concise summary of the findings from the reviewed studies. All inductive reasoning and interpretative statements should be reserved for the Discussion section. The distinction between the Results and Discussion sections is currently unclear, necessitating a major rewrite to separate these sections effectively. 

Discussion and Conclusion:

The manuscript identifies three research questions. However, it is not explicitly clear how these questions are addressed and answered within the Discussion and Conclusion sections. Please ensure that the discussion directly relates back to the research questions and that the conclusion provides clear and specific answers to each.

Appendix A (Page 22):

Upon reviewing Appendix A, there appears to be a potential numerical error. For instance, if the initial sample size was n = 62, and 12 cases were excluded, the resulting sample size should be n = 50, not n = 62 as currently presented. Please double-check all the numbers in Appendix A for accuracy.

In conclusion, while the topic of this manuscript is relevant and the intent is clear, substantial revisions are necessary to address the identified issues related to clarity, flow, methodological detail, and the distinction between results and discussion. I believe that with these major revisions, the manuscript has the potential to become a valuable contribution to the field.

Author Response

Comments 1: The introduction currently lacks clear topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph, making it difficult for the reader to follow the intended focus of each section. Furthermore, the logical flow between paragraphs needs improvement to ensure a cohesive narrative leading to the study's aims. I strongly suggest a thorough re-evaluation and rewrite of the entire introduction to address these issues.

Response: We agree with your recommendations. The introduction has been restructured and expanded to facilitate a logical progression to the research questions and purpose.  The text was designed to encourage a logical flow between paragraphs

Comment 2: 

Specific Comments: Formulation of the study aim

• Line 103 – 105: I recommend revising the sentence to: "This study aims to deductively overview the manifestations of physical literacy in preschool children and the factors impacting it across different age stages, systematizing these into four domains based on their elements." This revised phrasing appears to offer better clarity and conciseness.

Inconsistecy of terminology: Line 107 – 108: There seems to be inconsistency in terminology. The text uses "preschool age stage," while your table titles suggest a different term. Please carefully review the entire manuscript and ensure consistent use of either "preschool age stage" or "preschool period" (or your preferred term) to avoid reader confusion

Response:  On the basis of your recommendations the aim of the review was formulated: This study aims to deductively overview the manifestations of physical literacy in preschool children and the factors impacting it across different age stages, systematizing these into four domains based on their elements.

The inconsistency in terminology has been eliminated - "preschool age stage" is used in the text and tables based on Gallahue et al., (2012) terms.

Comment 3:The manuscript's Methods section requires further detail regarding the data presented in Appendix A. Please provide a clear explanation of all the numbers included in the appendix and explicitly detail the process through which the final sample size of n = 26 was derived. 

Response: We agree with your recommendation. The step-by-step sequence of search results is explained in the Results section (see bold in yellow Chapter Results).

Comment 4. The current Results section needs significant restructuring for clarity. It is recommended that the tables presenting your findings be moved to this section. Furthermore, the Results section should focus solely on reporting what was reviewed and providing a concise summary of the findings from the reviewed studies. All inductive reasoning and interpretative statements should be reserved for the Discussion section. The distinction between the Results and Discussion sections is currently unclear, necessitating a major rewrite to separate these sections effectively.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions for the results section. The tables have been inserted in the results section. All inductive and inter-indicative findings were included in the discussion section. 

Comment 5: 

Discussion and Conclusion: The manuscript identifies three research questions. However, it is not explicitly clear how these questions are addressed and answered within the Discussion and Conclusion sections. Please ensure that the discussion directly relates back to the research questions and that the conclusion provides clear and specific answers to each. 

Response: 

Thank you for your suggestions for the discussion and conclusions section. We very much appreciate your suggestions. The discussion and conclusions section was organised and interpreted according to the three research questions. 

 Comment 6: Appendix A (Page 22): In conclusion, while the topic of this manuscript is relevant and the intent is clear, substantial revisions are necessary to address the identified issues related to clarity, flow, methodological detail, and the distinction between results and discussion. I believe that with these major revisions, the manuscript has the potential to become a valuable contribution to the field.

Response: We agree that there is an error in the flow map, which has been corrected. An error was detected in the flow chart figures after screening the results, 22 results should have been screened out instead of 12.

Thank you for your constructive and structured suggestions, it helped to improve the quality of the paper. The manuscript has undergone major changes in all sections - Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusions. Your recommendations provide very comprehensive information on how to do this. Thank you very much! I  realy hope that our publication will be a valued contribution to the field of preschool education.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Inconsistent Terminology : 
 The most critical unresolved issue is the persistent inconsistency in terminology, 
particularly regarding the four domains of physical literacy. The abstract itself presents 
"affective, physical, cognitive and participation domains" initially, but later refers to 
"affective, physical, cognitive and social" domains. This core inconsistency undermines the 
systematic nature of the review and creates immediate confusion.

Response: Terminological inconsistencies in the manuscript have been eliminated by reviewing the manuscript content several times using uniform domain terminology in the abstract, methodology, results, discussion and conclusion sections – affective, physical competence, cognitive social domain. All corrections are marked in red.

Comment 2: Lack of Conciseness and Clarity in Writing (Persistent Issue): Issue: Despite revisions, the writing remains verbose and imprecise. Information, even when new details are added as per previous suggestions, is not presented concisely. This makes reading extremely challenging and impacts the paper's scientific impact. The conclusion, for instance, remains excessively long and reads more like an extended discussion, rather than a succinct summary.

Response: We shortened the conclusions section by highlighting the most important findings related to the research questions. It is possible that there are errors in the text, but due to time constraints, it was not possible to carry out a fundamental review, and we made changes where we saw repetition in the text, for example, in the introduction.

Comment 3: Rudimentary Organization and Unhelpful Subheadings (Unresolved): 
o Issue: The internal organization and use of subheadings remain confusing, hindering the 
logical flow of ideas. A review paper requires a clear, hierarchical structure to guide the 
reader through the synthesis of information. The current structure suggests a lack of careful 
planning in presenting the complex array of findings. 

Response: In the results and discussion section, we expanded the titles to make it easier to follow and understand the content.

Comment 4: Overall Polish and Reviewer Burden (Fundamental Problem): 
Issue: The manuscript's overall presentation remains below the expected standard for 
publication. Reviewers provide feedback for improvement, but the extent of unpolished 
writing and organizational issues suggests the paper is not yet ready for peer review at this 
stage.

Response:  We agree that there is a possibility that corrections are needed in terms of language use and comprehensibility, but we reserve the right to make changes within the scope of our competence. We seem to have misunderstood the reviewer's recommendations, as the overall review rating has deteriorated. We truly appreciate the reviewer's contribution and patience.