Modern ICT Tools and Video Content in Athletes’ Education—Inspiration from Corporate Learning and Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses the challenge of developing an effective educational process for athletes. To develop athletes' key professional and communication skills, short practical videos are proposed as educational content which are combined with reflection and feedback. The educational process was carefully designed by using modern ICT tools. Case study concept was applied, design thinking workshop was organised with the involvement of stakeholders and the conceptual model was developed as a digital twin using Scene2Model toolkit of OMiLAB. The paper includes the latest references in the literature review. 
I have the following comments:
My main concern is that experimental evaluation is missing. No feedback has been obtained from the application of the proposed educational process. I recommend conducting an evaluation of applying the proposed educational content and process. 
The paper uses the section names recommended in the Instructions for Authors but they are not applied properly. The Results section should contain description of the experimental results but its current content better suited for Materials and Methods section.
Some further comments:
Line 142: Mayer - missing reference to Mayer's publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for the time and expertise you put into your review. We are glad that you were able to identify multiple positive aspects in our study even before the revisions we have just made (changes are tracked within the Word’s revisions function).

Regarding your comments and recommendations:

• we have provided expert feedback for the model we designed in our study from relevant representatives of large sports organizations with national scope as an additional phase of the study’s evaluation,
• we have moved the corresponding subsection from the Results chapter into the Material and Methods chapter where it fits better, providing additional detail on the participants and the structure of the design thinking workshop conducted,
• we have addressed the issue with the missing reference directly in the text.

We hope that you will be able to accept the changes we made and recommend the article for further processing in its current form.

Have a lovely day.

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled “Modern ICT Tools and Video Content in Athletes’ Education – Inspiration from Corporate Learning and Development.” The study addresses a timely and relevant topic, and the interdisciplinary perspective linking sports education with corporate learning practices is a clear strength.

However, after careful evaluation, the manuscript requires major revisions before it can be considered for publication. Key areas needing improvement include clearer theoretical grounding, stronger methodological transparency, deeper analytical discussion of the results, and refinement of several sections for clarity and focus.

Please refer to the attached detailed review report for section-by-section feedback and specific recommendations regarding the abstract, keywords, introduction, theoretical background, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.

I hope these comments will be helpful in strengthening the manuscript.

Kind regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the manuscript is understandable, but it requires meticulous proof reading.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for the time and effort put into your thorough review of our study. We are happy that you were able to find our article timely and relevant with interdisciplinary links.

Regarding your comments and recommendations, we strived for incorporating them all within our revised version. Here is a structured description of the changes we have made based on the points from your review.  

Comments	Replies
Abstract	Research gap, sample, methods, and specific practical implications were included in the revised abstract.
Keywords	We have modified some of the key words and added others based on your recommendation.
Introduction	Research gap and research questions were properly described in this section.
Theoretical framework	We have added a new subchapter bridging the general learning theories, specifics of education in sports, and the justification of the transfer of proven practices from the corporate learning and development.
Materials and methods	Research design’s description was improved by the inclusion of research questions and the information on the sample and data collection (secondary and primary data). We have also added a step-by-step description of the whole study and supported the selection of the methods by additional relevant references.
Results	We have added a new section including the answers to the defined research questions to strengthen the connection of the results with the study’s main objective.
Discussion	We have elaborated the whole chapter further, adding new references and more critical comparisons and statements also focused on the study’s theoretical implications.
Conclusion	We have expanded the conclusions section to present the practical implications, limitations, and future research directions in a clearer way.
Proof reading	The whole text was carefully checked and improved.

 

We hope that you will be able to accept the changes we made and recommend the article for further processing in its current form.

Have a lovely day.

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with the authors that, while athletes may focus heavily on sport-specific development, they also need to acquire non-sport-related knowledge and skills to be better prepared for employment in the labour market once their sports careers end.

However, several issues should be addressed to improve the clarity and rigor of the manuscript:

1. Abstract: Please clearly state the research question(s) and/or the purpose of the study in the abstract, followed by a brief description of the methodology (e.g., participants/data source, instruments, and analysis approach).

2. Methodology: The data analysis procedure is missing. It is difficult to follow the step-by-step process of how the data were analyzed. Please provide a clear and detailed description (e.g., coding/analysis framework, reliability/validity checks, software used, and key analytical steps).

3. Figures: Please ensure that all faces in the figures are blurred to protect participants’ privacy.

4. Intervention design and evaluation: The learning and development design using ICT tools needs an evaluation process to assess the effects of implementation. At minimum, expert validation (e.g., content validity review) should be included; ideally, the manuscript should also report evidence of effectiveness (e.g., feedback, outcomes, or implementation evaluation).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your positive feedback regarding the study’s focus.

Regarding your comments and recommendations for improvement:

• we have modified the abstract accordingly,
• we have revised the methodology section including a step-by-step analysis procedure, research questions, details on the sample and software as well as further details on the study’s overall validity,
• we have added an explanation in the text pertaining to the figures included people’s faces (these were not the workshop participants, but the actors included in the video content already published on the professional web portal with the consents collected beforehand),
• we have added a phase of expert validation based on qualitative feedback for the model we designed.

We hope that you will be able to accept the changes we made and recommend the article for further processing in its current form.

Have a lovely day.

Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting the paper. The introduction of this paper is well referenced. The authors clearly highlight the research gap related to lifelong learning and career transition support. This research is mostly descriptive and design oriented. While acceptable for a case study, the paper lacks a systematic evaluation of the proposed model. To improve the paper strengthen, the authors should include an explicit evaluation component, such as qualitative feedback from participants, a usability assessment, or preliminary evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed learning framework. This paper would be suitable for publication after this improvement.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for appreciating that our study is well referenced and reacts to a clear research gap.

Regarding your comments and recommendations for improvement, we have added a new phase of the results’ evaluation based on the experts’ qualitative feedback from relevant sports organizations with a nation-wide operation. This is now described in the newly added subsection 4.5.

We hope that you will be able to accept the changes we made and recommend the article for further processing in its current form.

Have a lovely day.

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been significantly improved. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

thank you for acknowledging that the article has been properly improved. 

Based on your point of further improvement required within the conclusions connection with the actual results, we have made the corresponding changes in this section. 

Thank you for your time and expertise put into the review. 

Authors 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript demonstrates clear improvement in response to prior review comments. Optional: Only routine polishing remains before acceptance

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the manuscript is understandable, but it requires meticulous proof reading.

Author Response

Dear editor, 

thank you very much for the second round of reviewing our article. 

We have provided thorough proof reading and improvements of the language. 

Thank you for your time and expertise put into the review process. 

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor, Dear Authors,

This is the third round of review. I can see that the authors have revised the manuscript substantially; however, there are still several areas that require improvement.

1. Excessive self-citation: The manuscript contains a relatively high level of self-citation (more than 3–4 papers). Please reduce unnecessary self-citations and strengthen the literature review by incorporating more independent and recent studies. 

2. Placement and structure of limitations: Please place the Limitations section before the Conclusion and present it as a clear subsection.

3. Discussion organization: The Discussion section should be reorganized and clearly separated according to the four research questions (RQ1–RQ4) to improve clarity and coherence.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

thank you very much for your time spent checking our revisions after the first review round. 

Based on your suggestions, we have

• deleted our self-citations and supported the ideas by other references,
• moved the limitations section to its proper place, 
• reorganised the whole discussion to align it with the order of our research questions. 

Thank you very much for helping us improve the study's overall quality. 

Authors