Next Article in Journal
Impact of Mobile Learning on Students’ Achievement Results
Previous Article in Journal
The Appropriation of Symbolic Language in Worldview Education through Bibliodrama
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Using Cognitive Behavioural Techniques to Improve Academic Achievement in Student-Athletes

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9(2), 89; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020089
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Educ. Sci. 2019, 9(2), 89; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020089
Received: 6 March 2019 / Revised: 20 April 2019 / Accepted: 22 April 2019 / Published: 26 April 2019

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editor and authors,

First of all, I would like to thank you for offering me the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled "Using Cognitive Behavioral Techniques to Improve Academic Achievement in Student-Athletes". In general terms, it is a well-structured work  that meets the methodological and statistical criteria necessary to develop and satisfactorily understand of the document. In addition, a topic of interest for the editorial line of the journal is presented, such as the development of cognitive techniques to improve academic performance. In this sense, I believe that the manuscript could be accepted after making some changes:

Abstract:

- It is recommended that the number of participants and the duration of the intervention program will be added in the "Method" section.

- It is recommended that some implication be added in the "Conclusion" section.

Introduction

- The introduction section is well developed, current studies are used and the objectives are expressed in a coherent manner.

- It is recommended, before the objectives, to develop hypothesis of study.

- It is not necessary to differentiate the objectives in a separate section. Likewise, it is not recommended that subsequent bibliographic references be included.

- The inclusion of the following reference is recommended in order to give strength to this section: http://www.journalshr.com/index.php/issues/2018/71-vol-10-n3-september-december-2018 / 319-lopez-de-los-mozos-huertas-j-2018-condition-physical-and-performance-academic-journal-of-sport-and-health-research-103-349-360.

Material and method

- This section should be divided into the sections: 2.1. Design and participants; 2.2. Instruments; 2.3. Process; 2.4. Data analysis. In this sense, the information must be structured according to each section (for example, the information in the first paragraph should appear in the "data analysis" section).

- It is recommended to eliminate the vertical lines of the tables.

Results

- The section "data analysis" should be transferred to the "Material and method".

- Eliminate vertical lines of the tables and reduce the line spacing of the tables (check regulations for tables).

- Add the 0 of the units to the value given in the correlations to normalize the way of presenting the results.

- In the correlations, the values "1" of the associations between the same variables can be eliminated, as well as the last row "variable 6" with "variable 6".

- In general, indicate that the statistical analyzes are well executed.

- It is recommended that the comments of each table be improved, since they are somewhat brief. The authors should explain their main findings by pointing out the reference values.

Discussion

- The discussion is very well written and well developed.

References

- They must be revised and adapted to the regulations of the journal. For example, the number should appear in bold, or the title of the journals should be abbreviated.


Author Response

We  like to thank the reviewer for their time and apologize for the delay in answering. A letter to the reviewer is uplaoded

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript presents two approaches to improve achievement on secondary school students. Although the subject is of interest, the description (mostly the results section) is very poor. Authors should focus on:

1) Define a clear hypothesis of the study. Both the HRVBF and the PST should be better described and a clear relation to self-efficacy and self-regulation shoud be included. I wonder why both approaches have been used and if other studies may be used for comparison.

2) I recommend the authors to present the results in a more descriptive and interpretative narrative. Some of the results of the tables are poorly described or not described at all. Some of the information in the results sections should be moved to methodology (from 234 to 241). Table 2 is poorly described, as well as Table 3. Should you include a description of all columns and rows. You are using either GSE or SE.  The items in Table 4 are not described.  Tables 5 and 6 should be carefully described and interpreted. To me, the authors should do a lot better at analysing the results and give a sound description and interpretation. The authors should not leave the readers do the work.

3) The discussion section presents some strong arguments, but the authors should mainly focus on proving the hypothesis that should be implemented in the introduction. To me, the authors are trying to justifie that self-efficacy is not related to the approaches. Insteed, discussion should be directed to observe the differences between both approaches and which one might be fostering self-efficacy and self-regulation and viceversa.

4) Conclusions section is to vague. It should focus to the actual findings.


Author Response

We like to thank the reviewer for their time and apologize for the delay in answering. A letter to the reviewers is uploaded

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The new version has addressed the main points. The paper is worth to be published. There are still some minor comments to be addressed.


A few comments the authors shoud pay attention:


Line 297. I am missing a point at the end of the sentence.

Line 305. The reference is not in the correct form.

Line 338. The experimental hypothesis should be listed (either use the number or the defining text).


Since the authors explicited a set of 4 hypothesis, please make references to all of them in the text.


References. The journal format should be unified. There are several references where the journal is not in the correct form. Use Capital letters.


Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate the time you took to review our second draft. Under each point is a comment/action to your comments.

Line 297. I am missing a point at the end of the sentence.

The period has been added


Line 305. The reference is not in the correct form.

The reference has been fixed (also on line 296

Line 338. The experimental hypothesis should be listed (either use the number or the defining text).

We have added the H3 to the sentence to refer to the test hypthesis.


Since the authors explicited a set of 4 hypothesis, please make references to all of them in the text.

All analysis for hypothesis is identified by adding Hx to show which hypothesis is addressed.

References. The journal format should be unified. There are several references where the journal is not in the correct form. Use Capital letters.

All journals are fixed


Thank you.


Back to TopTop