Impact of Market Value, Roster Size, Arrivals and Departures on Performance in Iranian Men’s Football

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

 

Thank you for the opportunity to read your work. After carefully reading the manuscript, I have concluded that the manuscript has some problems which must be resolved. I will try to explain the main problems and concerns in detail:

 

1º. Authors did not follow the journal's rules in the entire paper.

 

2º. The title is very long for search engines like Google Scholar, WoS, Scopus.....

 

3º The methodology, the main objectives and research questions,  and new contribution need to be faced in the abstract section, please.

 

4º. Authors did not explain why you have worked in this study. Indeed, authors need to tackle the main gaps (supported by updated studies), the main goals and some research questions. Authors did not show these questions in the paper, Why? This is the most important information at a research project. Furthermore, in the Introduction section, there is a lack of motivation for this work, what is the research problem, what is the goal and objective of this research, what is the novelty and contribution of this manuscript.

 

5º. Right now, this seems a report from The Persian Gulf Pro League. Everything is positive, I would like to see different point of view from updated studies. 

 

6º Authors include the main contribution in the introduction section, it would be written in the conclusion section, and compare your own results with other updated studies.

 

7º. Authors did not tackle human resources and their value on performance in the introduction section. In fact, authors face the main contribution without explaining the main goals and research questions. This a great mistake.

 

8º Moreover, authors did not include and tackle the management of human resources in the Persian Gulf Pro League as a subsection at literature review, Why? It is the main keyword in the title of this paper. 

 

9º I would like to see some information related to Iranian woman's football, so   researchers can compare information with other leagues of football with other countries such as Premier League, Spanish league, etc.

 

10º. The literature review section should displays real examples from other leagues and human resoources management and team size. In addition, authors need to show a location map of this study, a table which compare the Persian Gulf Pro League wit other European and Latin America football leagues. 

 

11º. The literature review section is very long. Moreover, authors included the new section : 3. Empirical Setting: The Persian Gulf Pro League in Iran . Furthermore, there is a lot of information which should be removed. 

 

12º. The methodology section needs to be considerably improved in all terms. Firsts, authors did not explain why they used an econometric model, in fact, authors must illustrate other studies which used this methodology related to this topic and scope. Second, authors did not explain why they analyses the period (2009-2022) and the main reason why they examined this period of time. Third and last, authors implemented Table 1, but they did not develop and explained the context of this table in order to obtain the main results and conclusions.

 

13º. The findings echo from other authors which have tackled this topic. Indeed, authors did not show the main objectives and research questions in the discussion and conclusion section. Why. I did not understand it. Authors wrote in this section theoretical and managerial implications, and limitations and future research subsections. 

 

14º. I am so sorry but this paper cannot be published in this journal due to lack of the objetives, research questions and specific information related to this topic. 

 

 

Author Response

Please find the authors' response in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is relevant. The study is well developed and articulated. Some improvements could be achieved by stressing the implications.

Author Response

Please find the response in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper appears to be interesting and holds potential for making meaningful contributions to the existing literature. However, I have several comments and suggestions that could improve the quality of the paper for publication.

1)     It is recommended to revise the manuscript's title to align precisely with the variables and objectives of the research.

2)     The introduction lacks sufficient information about previous research undertaken and the gaps this study aims to address. It would be beneficial to provide more details on the specific research issue being addressed in this study. Additionally, the discussion on the literature gap and the contribution of this study should be further strengthened.

3)     A paragraph should be added at the end of the introduction to outline the remaining sections of the research.

4)     In section 2, subsection 2.1 should cover a suitable theoretical foundation that provides support for the study's model. Likewise, hypothesis statements should be added under their respective subsequent sections to clarify the specific analysis conducted in the regression analysis.

5)     In section 4.1, it is recommended to include a table that provides variable measurements, which would enhance clarity and readers' understanding.

6)     Descriptive statistics and table 1 should be discussed in section 5 (results) and can be merged with subsection 5.1.

7)     In Table 2, the standard errors should be presented under the respective coefficients. Additionally, the results of the Hausman test should be included.

8)     It should be clarified whether a comparison was made between pooled OLS and fixed/random effects models. If such a comparison was conducted, it should be mentioned.

9)     It is suggested to include diagnostic tests to ensure the accuracy of the results.

10)  Section 6, "Discussion and Conclusion," is still underdeveloped and needs improvement. It is recommended to include a separate subsection for the discussion, where the findings are explained in the context of the existing literature. The implications of the findings can be presented as a subsequent subsection.

11)  The conclusion should be covered in section 7, where concluding remarks are provided, incorporating all necessary elements of a conclusion. Subsection 7.1 can focus on the limitations of the study and provide directions for future research.

            12)  Overall, the language used in the paper is good. However, it would be beneficial to thoroughly proofread the manuscript to enhance the flow and integration between various parts of the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

 Overall, the language used in the paper is good. However, it would be beneficial to thoroughly proofread the manuscript to enhance the flow and integration between various parts of the paper.

Author Response

Please find the response in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, I saw that you have modified part of the manuscript, but I can still see serious problems related to three positive hypotheses, and now 2 negative hypotheses. These 5 questions were not tackled well because you are conditioning to respondents. Indeed, for me it is no clear that you show now two negative hypotheses, and not in the first paper. 

Regarding to methodology section, I wrote that:

authors did not explain why they used an econometric model, in fact, authors must illustrate other studies which used this methodology related to this topic and scope.

I know that is an econometric model and study, I do not need that authors explain me that it is. The question is that authors must explain why used this method, supported by updated studies to compare findings. I did not see it in the  method section. 

Authors have modified and implemented some information, but this add nothing new from the first version. In addition, discussion and conclusion sections information continue being the same according to "negative  hypotheses"

 

 

Author Response

Dear authors, I saw that you have modified part of the manuscript, but I can still see serious problems related to three positive hypotheses, and now 2 negative hypotheses. These 5 questions were not tackled well because you are conditioning to respondents. Indeed, for me it is no clear that you show now two negative hypotheses, and not in the first paper.

 

We do not really understand your comment.

In particular, we do not understand the reference to respondents, as we did not undertake a survey.

Besides, you are unclear why we made some changes, yet how can we revise and improve our paper without changes?

Due to our lack of understanding of what you mean, we are afraid we are not able to address your comment.

We can only comment on the fact that expecting positive vs. negative impacts is usual and common in econometric models, so we are unsure where the issue lies here.

 

Regarding to methodology section, I wrote that:

authors did not explain why they used an econometric model, in fact, authors must illustrate other studies which used this methodology related to this topic and scope.

I know that is an econometric model and study, I do not need that authors explain me that it is. The question is that authors must explain why used this method, supported by updated studies to compare findings. I did not see it in the  method section.

 

We already explained why we did not address this comment previously, in line with studies using an econometric model (already reviewed in section 2, so we do not understand why you insist on us also covering them in section 4), it is just the usual and common method when undertaking this kind of study.

We asked you which other method(s) could be used.

However, you do not suggest any other potential method.

Therefore, we are afraid we are not able to justify our method against another method, since we do not know what it could be.

The only revision we have been able to do in relation to your comment is adding “Similar to previous studies explaining team performance by several variables and in particular the sources used for our theoretical foundation” at the very start of the method section.

Hopefully, this is in line with what you expect.

 

Authors have modified and implemented some information, but this add nothing new from the first version.

 

Most of this information relates to Reviewer 3’s comments.

Although they still identify a need to improve the paper, they also appreciate our efforts to address their previous comments.

Therefore, stating that the revised information adds nothing new sounds excessive and disrespectful to us and the efforts made to improve the manuscript.

 

In addition, discussion and conclusion sections information continue being the same according to "negative  hypotheses"

 

We do not understand your comment and where the issue lies here.

Therefore, we have not addressed your comment.

As for our first reply above, we can only comment on the fact that expecting positive vs. negative impacts is usual and common in econometric models, so we are unclear why what you call “negative hypotheses” seems to represent an issue.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the revised manuscript. I appreciate the authors' efforts to address my previous comments. However, I have identified some remaining flaws that need to be resolved before publication.

 

We want to thank you for your appreciation of our efforts.

We have attempted to address most of your comments, see our replies below and the revisions highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.

We believe that your feedback has helped greatly improved the paper and in particular the robustness of the results.

We want to thank you for this and hope that our additional revisions are satisfactory.

 

1) Although the authors have included a section on theoretical foundation (section 2.1), it lacks sufficient detail on the underlying theoretical models. Instead, it appears that the authors have mainly discussed empirical literature within this section.

 

We feel that previous empirical literature can form the basis for our theoretical foundation, as it provides some findings that can help set expectations for our own study.

However, we agree that we should have provided more details on the underlying theoretical models.

We have elaborated further on these elements.

 

2) Similarly, the development of hypotheses can be improved as there is a lack of proper argumentation supporting the hypothesized statements.

 

We feel that we already added some argumentation supporting the hypothesized statements in our previous draft and are not sure how to address further your comment.

Besides, we are a bit concerned that you were happy with the way our hypotheses were stated in our first version (as you ticked yes for the corresponding rubric), and you now suggest that they can be improved.

Unless you can guide us with more specific recommendations, we suggest that we keep our argumentation as it stands, we hope this is acceptable.

 

3) Is Section 3 meant to be an empirical setting? However, it appears to be just an overview of the Persian Gulf Pro League. Authors should revise either heading or the content.

 

We agree the wording ‘empirical setting’ was misleading.

Accordingly, we have revised the heading, following your suggestion.

 

4) Authors are required to provide a proper explanation for Table 2, including descriptive statistics, in Section 5 (Results).

 

This has been added.

 

5) Authors have included diagnostic tests under Section 4.2, which still lacks discussion on some important assumptions. I suggest that authors present the diagnostic tests as Subsection 5.2 in Section 5 (Results) and provide a stronger, more detailed explanation of the methodology under Section 4 and diagnostic tests under section 5.2.

 

We felt that we discussed important assumptions after addressing your initial concerns.

However, we acknowledge that we did not conduct cross-dependence tests, now added.

Besides, following your suggestion, we have moved the diagnostic tests in section 5.2.

We initially aimed to address your comment about the need for a stronger, more detailed explanation of the methodology under section 4.

However, this led to redundancies between sections 4 and 5 as we described the diagnostic tests and regressions in section 4 before repeating them with their results in section 5.

Therefore, we have decided to only focus on the model, variables and data in section 4, and the results including our estimation approach under section 5.

We feel that this leads to a better and more logical overall flow of the paper and hope you will be happy with this.

 

6) The presentation of regression results is still poor. Authors should maintain a proper sequence in the analysis, starting with the pooled OLS model, followed by the F-test to compare it with the fixed effect model. Additionally, they have used the Hausman test to compare the fixed and random effects. However, they have only presented the pooled OLS and fixed effect results, and there is a lack of proper explanation and sequencing.

 

We were initially a bit concerned that you were happy with the way our results were presented in our first version (as you ticked yes for the corresponding rubric), and you now suggest that they must be improved.

We felt that we followed a proper sequence in our analysis.

However, we acknowledge that this could have been made more explicit.

We have attempted to clarify the process followed in the paper and here.

We started with fixed and random effects models.

Since the F tests provided by the fixed effects models were all significant, we initially did not conduct pooled OLS models.

We then added pooled OLS models based on regressions with Driscoll-Kraay standard errors in our first revision, as we felt you expected pooled OLS models.

However, we think it was a misinterpretation from our side (you asked whether we conducted pooled OLS models rather than requiring them) and eventually misleading (which may explain why you moved from being happy with the way the results were presented to this having to be improved), so we have now removed it.

Instead, we have now tested for cross-dependence in the residuals through the xtcd2 command on Stata.

We did not find any evidence of cross-dependence for our residuals.

Therefore, the fixed effects regressions robust to heteroscedasticity should be favoured, without any need to apply Driscoll-Kraay standard errors.

Fixed effects regressions robust to heteroscedasticity are now the only regressions presented.

This is because based on the diagnostic tests, they are the specific regressions that are appropriate and therefore should be conducted.

We have removed any other regressions tested for the sake of clarity for readers, as their addition would be misleading and confusing (as it was in our previous revised draft).

We hope this is fine with you.

As a final note, we want to thank you for challenging us in a positive way, as this has led us to provide further consideration and improve our diagnostic tests, hence giving more confidence to readers that our regressions are appropriate and their results trustable.

We also feel that the diagnostic tests and regressions are now more coherent and better integrated after having followed your suggestions.

We trust you will agree with us.

We thank you in advance for your further consideration.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, I checked the last version, and now this manuscript can be published from my point of view. 

Author Response

We want to thank the reviewer for their view that the manuscript can be published now.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the revised manuscript. I appreciate the authors' efforts in addressing all of my comments and concerns. However, at this stage, I accept this manuscript with just two minor suggestions that I believe can further enhance the final published version.

1)             Firstly, in regards to the theoretical section, I understand the authors' position regarding the potential lack of suitable theoretical models or theories given the unique nature of this research. Therefore, I agree with the authors' response and suggest revising heading 2 to "Theoretical Review and Hypothesis Development" and heading 2.1 to "Theoretical Review", which would be more fitting for the content.

 

2)             Secondly, I recommend revising heading 5 to simply "Results". There is no need to include "Descriptive Statistics", "Evolution of Key Variables", and "Estimation Approach" in the main heading. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We want to thank the reviewer for their positive feedback about the revised draft.

Their two suggestions have been implemented.