Exploratory Study on Scholars in Exercise and Sport Sciences in Italy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments
Author aimed to examine to measure the opinions on the usefulness of unification, hybridization with other knowledge and interdisciplinarity with pedagogy, typicality of undergraduate education as a result of the new profession of kinesiologist and the additional European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) of Technical and laboratory activities (TLA) through the administration of 8 questions with 3 multiple answers.
The design of the study is appropriate and the manuscript is in general well written. Further, the manuscript deals with an interesting area which is not frequently analyzed in available literature. Finally, the author state that results are significant and tended toward autonomy from pedagogy, training aligned with the bachelor's and master's degree kinesiologist, and interdisciplinarity inherent in typical Exercise and Sport Science (ESS) keywords. Must to say, that the researches like this are very rare, and authors should be encouraged in publishing.
Specific comments:
Comment 1: Abstract doesn’t have any information about subjects used in the study. Similarly, results in abstract should contain some significant data information, where p values have showed significance, etc.
Comment 2: Keywords should not be in the title of the manuscript, specifically the word “sport sciences”.
Comment 3: Procedures of the study are not described at all.
Comment 4: It could be very useful if tables have description of abbreviations.
Comment 5: At the end of the discussion section, it should be highlighted the main strengths and weaknesses of the research.
Comment 6: What is the application of the study in real-world settings?
Author Response
I sincerely thank the Reviewer for the constructive comments and suggestions provided. Below, I provide a point-by-point response to each of your observations:
Comment 1: “Abstract doesn’t have any information about subjects used in the study. Similarly, results in abstract should contain some significant data information, where p values have showed significance, etc.”
Response: I acknowledge the absence of specific information regarding the study participants and key statistical outcomes in the original abstract. I have revised the abstract to include the total number of subjects, relevant demographic details, and significant findings. Where applicable, p-values and effect sizes have been added to provide a concise but informative overview of the results.
Comment 2: “Keywords should not be in the title of the manuscript, specifically the word ‘sport sciences’.”
Response: Thank you for this observation. I have revised the title to avoid overlap with the keywords, specifically removing the repetition of “sport sciences.” The title has been reformulated to preserve clarity and thematic relevance without redundancy.
Comment 3: “Procedures of the study are not described at all.”
Response: I appreciate this important remark. The procedures section has been expanded and now includes a detailed description of the study design, data collection protocols, and instruments used. This revision aims to ensure transparency and replicability of the research methodology.
Comment 4: “It could be very useful if tables have description of abbreviations.”
Response: Thank you for this practical suggestion. I have updated all tables to include footnotes that clearly define any abbreviations used. This addition is intended to improve readability and ensure full comprehension of the data presented.
Comment 5: “At the end of the discussion section, it should be highlighted the main strengths and weaknesses of the research.”
Response: In response to this helpful recommendation, I have added a dedicated paragraph at the end of the discussion section that summarizes the main strengths and limitations of the study. This addition aims to provide a balanced critical perspective and guide the interpretation of findings.
Comment 6: “What is the application of the study in real-world settings?”
Response: I thank the Reviewer for highlighting the need to address the practical implications of the study. Accordingly, I have included a brief section at the end of the discussion outlining the potential real-world applications of our findings, particularly in educational, clinical, and interdisciplinary sport science contexts. This aims to clarify the study's relevance and potential impact beyond the academic setting.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle and Abstract
The abstract is vague on methodological aspects and statistical results. Key information is missing: n, type of analysis, statistical significance, magnitude of effects. It is recommended to add indicators such as p-values and percentage per relevant question.
Introduction
Excessive normative description and little connection with the research gap. It is suggested to reduce historical elements and expand the scientific justification with recent international literature (JCR).
Method
The sample size is not justified and there is no statistical power analysis. The questionnaire is neither included nor validated. It is suggested to include the questionnaire as an annex and apply reliability analysis (e.g., Cronbach's alpha). In addition, review whether the items measure different or related constructs.
Results
Redundancy in the presentation (tables + replicated text). Confidence intervals are missing and some tables could go to supplementary material. It is suggested to synthesize main results in the body of the text and leave the complete breakdowns as annexes.
Discussion
Little self-criticism of methodological limitations (e.g., selection bias, lack of validity of the instrument, dichotomized Likert-type responses). It is recommended to incorporate more critical and comparative discussion with similar studies (not only Italian).
Conclusion
Conclusions go beyond the data obtained. It is recommended to limit statements to the actual scope of the study and not suggest structural changes without longitudinal or comparative evidence.
References
Cites relevant national literature and recent articles (2022-2024), many indexed in Sport Sciences for Health. Excessive use of authors close to the lead author, possible self-citation bias. Recommend adding high-impact international studies on kinesiologist profile, interdisciplinarity, or ESS taxonomies.
Author Response
I sincerely thank the Reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments and suggestions provided. Below, I provide a point-by-point response to each of your observations:
Reviewer: The abstract is vague on methodological aspects and statistical results. Key information is missing: n, type of analysis, statistical significance, magnitude of effects. It is recommended to add indicators such as p-values and percentage per relevant question.
Answer: I acknowledge the lack of methodological and statistical details in the original abstract. In response, I have revised the abstract to include the sample size (n), the type of statistical analysis performed, p-values, and effect sizes where applicable. I have also added percentage values to highlight the most relevant findings, as suggested. These changes aim to provide a clearer and more concise summary of the study's methodology and key results
Reviewer: Excessive normative description and little connection with the research gap. It is suggested to reduce historical elements and expand the scientific justification with recent international literature (JCR).
Answer: I appreciate the Reviewer’s observation. Accordingly, I have reduced the normative and historical descriptions in the introduction and redirected the focus toward clarifying the research gap. I have strengthened the scientific rationale of the study by integrating recent peer-reviewed international literature indexed in JCR journals. These additions better contextualize the research within the current scientific debate and enhance its relevance.
Reviewer: Sample size is not justified and there is no statistical power analysis. The questionnaire is neither included nor validated. It is suggested to include the questionnaire as an annex and apply reliability analysis (e.g., Cronbach's alpha). In addition, review whether the items measure different or related constructs.
Answer: A post-hoc power analysis was conducted and added in the methods section. The full questionnaire has now been added as Annex 1. However, Ichose not to perform internal consistency analysis, as the questionnaire was not designed to assess a single latent construct but rather to capture diverse and independent themes. Therefore, reliability metrics would not be appropriate. Instead, face and content validity were ensured by piloting the questionnaire with five academic experts, leading to minor wording revisions before distribution.
Reviewer: Redundancy in the presentation (tables + replicated text). Confidence intervals are missing and some tables could go to supplementary material. It is suggested to synthesize main results in the body of the text and leave the complete breakdowns as annexes.
Answer: Thank you very much for your feedback. I appreciate your suggestion to reduce redundancy by synthesizing the main results in the text and relocating detailed tables to the supplementary material (Appendix 1 for the survey). I have also added the CI.
Reviewer: Little self-criticism of methodological limitations (e.g., selection bias, lack of validity of the instrument, dichotomized Likert-type responses). It is recommended to incorporate more critical and comparative discussion with similar studies (not only Italian).
Answer: Thank you very much for your feedback. I have expanded this part to openly discuss these aspects and their possible impact on the findings. Moreover, I have tried to enrich the discussion by incorporating other international studies.
Reviewer: Conclusions go beyond the data obtained. It is recommended to limit statements to the actual scope of the study and not suggest structural changes without longitudinal or comparative evidence.
Answer: Thank you very much for your feedback. I have revised the Conclusions section to better align the final remarks with the actual scope and limitations of our study
Reviewer: Cites relevant national literature and recent articles (2022-2024), many indexed in Sport Sciences for Health. Excessive use of authors close to the lead author, possible self-citation bias. Recommend adding high-impact international studies on kinesiologist profile or ESS taxonomies.
Answer: I have reviewed the references and reduced the number of citations potentially subject to self-citation bias. To enhance the international scope of the manuscript and ensure a more balanced perspective, I have added high-impact international studies published in reputable journals on topics such as the professional profile of the kinesiologist, interdisciplinary approaches in exercise science, and ESS (Exercise and Sport Science) taxonomies
