Tennis Coaches’ Perceptions of Covid-19 Impact on Their Health and Professional Activity: A Multi-Cultural Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think this study is a good study in that it has developed and verified measures for the purpose to study the perception of Spanish and Portuguese speaking tennis coaches working in Latin America and European countries regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in their health, economy and professional aspects. However, authors need to supplement it by modifying it as below comment.

1. The authors should improve the readability of their manuscript, there are typos, grammatical errors, and mistakes in the main text and the references. The authors should have their manuscript proofread by a native English speaker who is experienced in editing academic articles.
2. Abstract is an overall summary of the research. However, the purpose of the study and the necessity of the study are not mentioned at all. Therefore, it is necessary to mention the purpose of the study and the need for the study.
3. I expected a multicultural approach by looking at the title, but there is little related to the multicultural approach. If the title mentions a multicultural approach, the reason for the multicultural approach should be presented in the introduction based on prior researches, and multicultural approach results should be presented in the research results. However, there is very little of this content.
4. I wonder if the "tennis coaches' perception of the impact of Corona 19 on their health and professional activities" is valuable as a study. Authors should explain better the academic contribution of the work developed. Highlighting what is innovative / original about the existing literature. In other words, the need for research in the instruction is relatively insufficient. Why this study is necessary should be emphasized more specifically and academically.
5. Research questions or hypothesis are not clear. This study is a quantitative research with samples, so it should be a hypothesis-verification study. Therefore, research questions or research hypothesis should be included between the introduction and research methods. Plus, the results of the hypothesis verification for the selected hypothesis should be included in the conclusion.
6. The authors should emphasize the selection criteria of participants. There should be more specific inclusion/exclusion criteria with regards to the participants.
7. The reliability verification process and reliability results of the questionnaire, including all survey items, should be presented.
8. How can coaches compare perceptions with results analyzed on a Likert scale? For example, is 4.6 and 4.8 comparable between 'very agree' and 'agree'? What do the authors think?

Author Response

I think this study is a good study in that it has developed and verified measures for the purpose to study the perception of Spanish and Portuguese speaking tennis coaches working in Latin America and European countries regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in their health, economy and professional aspects. However, authors need to supplement it by modifying it as below comment.

The authors are grateful that the reviewer considers the study to be important and of good quality.

1. The authors should improve the readability of their manuscript, there are typos, grammatical errors, and mistakes in the main text and the references. The authors should have their manuscript proofread by a native English speaker who is experienced in editing academic articles.

 

The authors welcome the reviewer’s proposal. The manuscript was reviewed by a native English speaker with experience in editing academic articles. It has been reviewed again by another native English speaker experienced in editing academic articles.

 

1. Abstract is an overall summary of the research. However, the purpose of the study and the necessity of the study are not mentioned at all. Therefore, it is necessary to mention the purpose of the study and the need for the study.

 

The authors agree and welcome the reviewer's proposal. The purpose and the need for the study have been added to the abstract.

 

1. I expected a multicultural approach by looking at the title, but there is little related to the multicultural approach. If the title mentions a multicultural approach, the reason for the multicultural approach should be presented in the introduction based on prior researches, and multicultural approach results should be presented in the research results. However, there is very little of this content.

 

The authors are grateful for this consideration. Information on this has been included in the introduction (lines 102-103), however, we believe that the results reflect this approach as the analysis compares multicultural data from the two regions analysed.

 

1. I wonder if the "tennis coaches' perception of the impact of Corona 19 on their health and professional activities" is valuable as a study. Authors should explain better the academic contribution of the work developed. Highlighting what is innovative / original about the existing literature. In other words, the need for research in the instruction is relatively insufficient. Why this study is necessary should be emphasized more specifically and academically.

 

The authors agree that justifying the need for research is important. In the introduction (lines 49-58; 84-89; 94-101) it is pointed out how little research has been done on the impact of the pandemic on coaches. In addition, the importance of coaches' views on this issue is emphasised. If the reviewer considers it important to justify this from a different perspective, we would be grateful if this could be more concretely stated.

 

1. Research questions or hypothesis are not clear. This study is a quantitative research with samples, so it should be a hypothesis-verification study. Therefore, research questions or research hypothesis should be included between the introduction and research methods. Plus, the results of the hypothesis verification for the selected hypothesis should be included in the conclusion.

 

The authors are grateful for the proposal. The hypotheses of the research have been added at the end of the introduction (lines 109-114), and the conclusions have been drafted on the basis of these hypotheses (lines 298-304).

 

1. The authors should emphasize the selection criteria of participants. There should be more specific inclusion/exclusion criteria with regards to the participants.

 

The authors are grateful for the proposal. The selection criteria was emphasized (lines 121-125)

 

1. The reliability verification process and reliability results of the questionnaire, including all survey items, should be presented.

 

The authors agree that the reliability of the questionnaire should have been indicated. This information has been added to the manuscript (lines 153 - 158 and table 2).

 

1. How can coaches compare perceptions with results analyzed on a Likert scale? For example, is 4.6 and 4.8 comparable between 'very agree' and 'agree'? What do the authors think?

 

The legend included in the questionnaire was (it has been added to the manuscript):

 

1 = completely disagree; 2 = mostly disagree; 3 = undecided; 4 = mostly agree; 5 = completely agree.

 

Therefore, the values obtained in the results can be associated to the nearest value on the Likert scale.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I find the article interesting and it touches on a very important topic, but I also have some comments.

I paid attention to this sentence: “The tennis 37 community is also facing considerable challenges and risks as our sport is disrupted by 38 COVID-19”. It seems to me that the article should be written in a more neutral tone, with no clear preference for one sport. Also the same on page 8: “Everyone that loves our game has the great responsibility to transform the postpone-303 meant of tennis play caused by the pandemic into an amazing opportunity”.  I do not think that only tennis fans will read this article, it should be more neutral.

I advise you to check the English language, because in a few cases there were small errors, like for example "impact in coaches" (page 2).

I also believe that a paragraph in a scientific article should be longer than 2 sentences (also page 2).

I am also wondering about this sentence: “It was thought that, given the key role 92 coaches play in the delivery of any sport in general and of tennis in particular”. Why is the role of the coach in tennis so special? What makes it more unique than in other sports?

A very short description of the study design – only one sentence. I believe that it would be worth expanding it, describing it in more detail.

The results of the study showing that the coaches used the pandemic period to improve their professional competences are very interesting. This also highlights the positive aspects of this period on sport.

Author Response

I find the article interesting and it touches on a very important topic, but I also have some comments.

Thank you very much, we are pleased that you find the work interesting.

I paid attention to this sentence: “The tennis 37 community is also facing considerable challenges and risks as our sport is disrupted by 38 COVID-19”. It seems to me that the article should be written in a more neutral tone, with no clear preference for one sport. Also the same on page 8: “Everyone that loves our game has the great responsibility to transform the postpone-303 meant of tennis play caused by the pandemic into an amazing opportunity”.  I do not think that only tennis fans will read this article, it should be more neutral.

The authors agree and welcome the suggestion. Both sentences have been modified in the manuscript, using a more neutral language.

I advise you to check the English language, because in a few cases there were small errors, like for example "impact in coaches" (page 2).

The authors welcome the reviewer’s proposal. The manuscript was reviewed by a native English speaker with experience in editing academic articles. It has been reviewed again by another native English speaker experienced in editing academic articles.

I also believe that a paragraph in a scientific article should be longer than 2 sentences (also page 2).

The authors agree and welcome the suggestion. The text has been corrected in the manuscript.

I am also wondering about this sentence: “It was thought that, given the key role 92 coaches play in the delivery of any sport in general and of tennis in particular”. Why is the role of the coach in tennis so special? What makes it more unique than in other sports?

The authors are grateful for the feedback provided by the reviewer. It was not our intention to convey that coaches have a more important role in tennis than in other sports. The sentence has been rewritten for clarity.

 

A very short description of the study design – only one sentence. I believe that it would be worth expanding it, describing it in more detail.

The authors are grateful for the reviewer's proposal, however, we feel that the study design is fully described with the information given in the sample and procedure sections. We believe that including more information in the study design section would lead to redundant information in the manuscript.

The results of the study showing that the coaches used the pandemic period to improve their professional competences are very interesting. This also highlights the positive aspects of this period on sport.

Thank you for highlighting this important finding of the study.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have modified all of my suggestion. Thanks.