Does Producing Scientific Articles Lead to Paralympic Podiums?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General questions

The manuscript has interesting and relevant results about the link between the production of Paralympic scientific articles and the medals won by countries during Summer/Winter Paralympic Games between 2012 and 2022. It has adequate theoretical justification, design and discussion. However, some items need to be corrected and clarified.

Major questions

- Table 2: some articles do not refer to sport, for example wheelchair and swimming...

- Many articles appear in more than one sport and are often articles that cover broad topics. I suggest you do a survey of how many articles specific to the sport and/or area were produced. I believe that the result will be much lower, which indicates the need for specific studies.

- I think it needs to be considered as a limitation that Paralympic sport does not benefit from and correlates only with Paralympic publications. Non-Paralympic publications also impact performance in the Paralympics (biomechanics, physiology, training and others). This was not taken into account in this study.

- the supplementary data does not make any sense with the manuscript

Minor questions

- References: a) please, review all titles in references. Some have words in capital letters and others in lower case. Need to standardize according to the norms; b) the names of some periodicals are abbreviated and others are spelled out, please standardize; c) correct reference 4 (capital letter).

Author Response

We would like to thank Reviewers for taking the time and effort necessary to review the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate all valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors successfully present a citation review that aims to quantify the connection between Paralympic scientific articles and countries' medal achievements during the 2012-2022 Summer/Winter Paralympic Games. Despite the merit of the study, certain aspects require clarification to improve the manuscript's overall clarity.

INTRODUCTION

The introduction section is relatively brief and could benefit from further development. Although the authors provide a good overview of the problem, it would be advisable to incorporate more information from the studies cited. Specifically, I suggest enriching the paragraph (lines 38-44) by including examples of Paralympic games studies that have been referenced.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

1. Search Strategy and Study Quality Assessment:
• The manuscript lacks information on the search strategy employed. I recommend that the authors include details on the search strategy to enhance transparency.
• Additionally, it would be beneficial to explain how the quality of eligible studies was assessed.

2. Equation Representation:
• In section 2.4, when referring to the "Citation Index" equation, consider representing it as a formula. This could be presented in a clearer format, such as using a mathematical equation, to improve readers' comprehension.

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusion section should be reorganized and further developed. Moreover, a practical implications section should be further developed. How can these findings help coaches and practitioners? Which practical implications can it have?

Author Response

We would like to thank Reviewers for taking the time and effort necessary to review the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate all valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

- the supplementary data does not make any sense with the manuscript

Author Response

We finally found where the "supplement material option" was turned on adn turned it off. We apologize for our mistake.