Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is great to see that self-refereeing in Ultimate receives more attention in academic research and this paper is a valuable contribution to this trend. Both the introduction/conclusion and the empirical study are well-conceived and clearly presented. 

My only concern is that the two aspects are not perfectly connected. A key claim of the more theoretical part is to promote Ultimate (or self-refereeing more general) as a valuable tool in pedagogic contexts. However, the empirical study is not in a position to support that claim. The same also holds for some other claims in the introduction, discussion, and conclusion. I nevertheless think that this is a valuable contribution that warrants publication. 

I noticed some typos (e.g.: “SOTG time sheet” -> “SOTG score sheet”, “If a team gives a zero on four” -> “If a team gives a zero or four”) I am sure there are more so I recommend another round of careful proofreading. 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, the comments and answers to the questions are in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, the comments and answers to the questions are in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf