“I Am on Top!”: An Interactive Intervention Program to Promote Self-Regulation Processes in the Prevention of the Use of Doping in Sports High Schools

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors employ a quasi-experimental design often found in educational research.  The limitations of the design are articulated in section 4.1.

The analyses, both descriptive and analytical, are appropriate and relatively easy to follow and understand.  It is reasonably clear that the intervention “worked” at least in the short term.  It remains to be seen if the effects are maintained over time for this one-shot intervention.  Perhaps a reinforcement intervention some three months after the original would be appropriate.

I am impressed with the design and measurements employed.  However, I have a few minor comments.  It is not clear when the four 90-minute sessions took place.  Were they spread over the month?  I believe that readers would appreciate knowing the main results before the “Discussion.”  This would make it easier to follow the interpretation of the results in the next section.

In summary this is a well-designed and executed study employing a quasi-experimental and appropriate use of ANOVA.  It is well-written, and the conclusions are interesting and raise issues for further research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to congrats the authors on this contribution to the scientific community, and on the importance of doping prevention and consciousness-raising. It is a great study and it presents a coherent structure, but some changes must be carried out in order to improve the quality of the study. 

A document is attached with some comments. If you have any doubt don't hesitate to contact me. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I trust this letter finds you well. I have had the privilege of reviewing your manuscript submitted to this journal.Your work is both interesting and important, and I believe it has the potential to significantly contribute to our understanding of the topic.

While I appreciate the overall quality of your paper, I believe there are certain areas within the "Materials and Methods" section that could benefit from further clarity and elaboration to enhance the comprehensibility and transparency of your research methodology. These suggestions are meant to improve the overall quality of your paper and make it more accessible to readers:

1. Participant Recruitment: Provide additional details on how the six Italian sports high schools were selected for the study, including the criteria used for their inclusion and how they were informed about the research. Consider discussing any relevant characteristics or demographics of the schools.

2. Intervention Development: Offer a more in-depth description of the development of the Serious Game (SG) intervention. Elaborate on the involvement of sport psychologists, sport scientists, and the computer scientist. Explain how the focus group's input was integrated into the SG design and how this ensured its relevance to the target population.

3. Intervention Implementation: Provide further detail on the structure of the four 90-minute intervention sessions. Describe the content covered in each session and how the sport psychologist facilitated the discussions and activities.

4. Measures: In the "Measures" section, provide a brief rationale for the choice of each measure. Explain why these specific variables were selected and how they relate to the research questions.

5. Reliability: Address the relatively low internal consistency reliabilities for some measures (e.g., moral disengagement). Discuss potential reasons for these reliabilities and how they might impact the interpretation of the results.

6. Data Analysis: While you provide an overview of the data analysis methods, consider expanding on the statistical tests used, especially if they are less common. Explain why these specific tests were chosen and how they align with the research objectives.

7. Interpretation of Results: In the "Results" section, provide more contextual interpretation of the findings. Explain the practical implications of the results and their significance in the context of the study's goals.

8.  

I believe that addressing these suggestions will not only strengthen the "Materials and Methods" section but also enhance the overall quality and accessibility of your paper. Your research has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the academic community, and I look forward to seeing the revised version of your manuscript.

If you have any questions or require further clarification regarding my recommendations, please do not hesitate to reach out. I appreciate your dedication to advancing research in this important area and commend your efforts.

Sincerely,
Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

After carefully consideration of changes introduced as a result of the revision, I think all concerns raised in said revision has been attended and therefore the manuscript is ready for publication.

Best regards,

Reviewer