Sustainable Management of the Public Financial Model for Sports Support in Slovakia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please read the attachment. Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Readable. Minor changes are needed.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

thank you very much for all your time and effort put into your review.

We have corrected all the formal and language issues identified in your review. We have also had the whole article corrected by an English professional to increase its overall language quality. 

We have improved our methodology section, adding details on the exact numbers of respondents addressed in the interviews as well as the research categories included. 

We have also added new references into the discussion section following your recommendation. 

We have rewritten the results part related to the interviews results. 

We have refined and expanded the recommendations, adding specific point utilising the capabilities of the blockchain technology in the studied field. 

We hope that we have increased the quality of our article so that you will be able to recommend it for publishing in this version. 

Have a lovely day. 

Authors

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract. The abstract is very informative: the relevance of the research, methods used, and value are provided. The aim of the study and its originality are presented.

Introduction. Much of the information in the introduction is presented without reference to any sources. E.g., the factors of the sports environment divided into three levels; the fact that most research projects deal with macro- and micro-level factors, and few examine cross-level factors; etc. Therefore, the gap in the existing scientific research is not revealed. Despite this shortcoming, the introduction part clearly demonstrates the necessity of the research and the authors’ contribution.

Literature review. Same as in the Introduction, chapter 2.2. looks like own ideas and considerations – three literature sources are provided only at the end of the chapter. In my opinion, the literature review should be based on the comparative analysis of related literature, not on the authors’ knowledge about the issue. In the chapter 2.3. the authors already present some interviews, but the interviews are not the part of the scientific literature. The same problem is regarding the chapter 2.4. Considering the latter mentioned, the “Literature review” is not the review of related literature; this part of the paper either must be renamed either grounded by the relevant literature.

Materials and Methods. In this part the authors declare: “The aim of the research presented in this article was to create a comprehensive comparative analysis of the funding of sports in Slovakia within the three examined levels – national, regional, and local”. However, in the introduction of the paper, the authors established macro, meso, and micro levels. Such different level naming evokes confusion. My suggestion would be using same names to avoid confusing the reader. Moreover, chapter 3.1. is called “Research objective”, but the authors provide the aim of the research. The synonyms may not be used in the scientific writing; therefore, a clear distinction what is “the aim” and what is/are the objective(s) must be provided.

The provided hypotheses are not grounded by the scientific literature. In my opinion, hypotheses should be raised based on the analysis of the scientific literature (previous research in the field) not on the own insights. As the review of the existing literature was scarce, it was insufficient to properly ground the hypotheses.

Based on the description of Data processing and analysis, it is not clear how many interviewees participated in the study. The description is in plural for each interviewed category (athletes, managers, coaches, representatives, etc.); however, in Table 1 is described only one for each category. Therefore, it is confusing.  

Results. I would suggest naming (like a different chapter) the research provided in lines 360-412. Table 5 needs a note with an explanation of abbreviations.

There is a problem with chapter numbering: there are two chapters numbered 4.3.1. Also, for the first 4.3.1. (which should have been numbered 4.2.1.): if there is x.x.1., there must also be x.x.2.

Based on the presentation of Materials and Methods, I was expecting that interviews would provide some sound insights. Currently, interview results are barely presented. What were the main questions? What categories/subcategories of the issue were analyzed? As the presentation of the interviews in ‘Materials and Methods’ section was blurry, the analysis of results is nothing better.

The hypotheses testing is not clear. Could the authors specify the information which led to hypotheses validation? Maybe a table of hypotheses testing would show the full picture?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

let us thank you very much for all your helpful comments and insights included in your review. We tried to follow all of them to the best of our abilities. 

We have done the changes in the introduction as well as in the literature review as they were recommended by you. We have clarified the naming of the levels and added new references. 

We have also made the formal adjustments required. 

We have connected our hypotheses to the corresponding references.

We have added the requested details on the interviews into the methodology. 

We have added the explanations below table 5. 

We have added the research categories to the interviews results. 

We have created a table showing the hypothesis testing and final decisions on their validity. 

We hope that we were able to improve the overall quality of the article based on your comments so that now you will be able to recommend it for publishing. 

Thank you again for your time. 

Have a lovely day.

Authors 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I am pleased to review an original article draft entitled "Sustainable management of the public financial model for sports support in Slovakia". Compelling topic! the manuscript is well-written and logically structured, however, I have several concerts, both major and minor, and I invite you to follow my points below:

1. Abstract is quite informative, however, it should have more "flow" for a reader in terms of language style. Can it be possible to simplify sentences in the abstract, please?

2. Research implications can be a great extension of the abstract. I would recommend focusing on the practical implication, considering the topic.

3. (39-49) citation would significantly enhance the argument, please refer to the literature.

4. In the section 3.2. it is not clear how all three hypotheses were shaped. 

5. Any study protocol/ studies with similar methodological frame to follow? pleae mention in the methods section, if any.

6. Interesting data and comprehensive interpretation, I truly enjoy reading this draft!

7. I would recommend eliminating bullet points from the conclusion ...if there is any other way to text it?

8. I would suggest extend discussion in the spirit of "so what?", what is a solution? Maybe digitalisation and blockchain technologies can be seen as a solution and can be mentioned and recommended as a future perspective research directions. For example, see:

GLEBOVA, E., & MIHAĽOVÁ, P. (2023). New currencies and new values in professional sports: blockchain, NFT, and fintech through the stakeholder approach. Journal of Physical Education & Sport, 23(5).

Lv, C., Wang, Y. and Jin, C., 2022. The possibility of sports industry business model innovation based on blockchain technology: Evaluation of the innovation efficiency of listed sports companies. Plos one, 17(1), p.e0262035.

9. For sure, readers would be happy to see a graphic visualising all 3 levels you analyse, briefly involving results.

10. "Sustainability" should be articulated in the intro or theoretical framework, since it is a "core" of this study.

Good luck! Thank you for your attention.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for all your king and encouraging words included in your review and for your honest interest in our article and the results presented. We were very pleased to read them. 

We have rewritten the abstract to give it more flow for the readers, adding the implications based on your suggestion. 

We have added the citation requested in your comment n. 3. 

We have added new references into the literature review and connected the hypotheses to them. 

We have also added similar studies into the methodology section, supporting and justifying our procedure and protocol. 

We have rewritten the recommendations, eliminating the bullet points. 

Thank you for your inspiration on the application of the blockchain technology. We have incorporated this in the recommendations as well as the discussion and the future direction of other research projects. 

We have added a new table as well as a new figure capturing the main findings, based on your suggestion. 

We have emphasised the sustainability aspect in the whole text. 

We sincerely hope that we were able to satisfy all your suggestions and requests so that you will be able to recommend the article for publishing in its current form. 

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

Have a lovely day. 

Authors 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, thank you for considering my recommendations. I wish you a good luck in your further research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the effective revisions.