Spatial Bodies: Vulnerable Inclusiveness within Gyms and Fitness Venues in Sweden

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

First of all, a thank you for the topic you seek to address for the fitness industry. The topic of the manuscript is interesting, but the way it is organised and written fails to convey what is intended. How does this article manage to help gyms in Sweden and outside Sweden? How does it succeed in helping managers and architects to improve their spaces to be more inclusive? The abstract itself does not answer this question. However, from method to conclusion it necessarily has to be reorganised and statistically more robust.

- The method can be subdivided into:

(1) Sample – n.º of people; no.º of gyms; age group. It does not seem right for the researcher to be part of the sample. If necessary put tables or charts;

(2) Instrument - we don't know what the interview questions are. No relation to the literature review;

(3) Procedure - how did you collect the data?

(4) Analysis - how did you analyze the data? What software did you use?

I know that some of the information asked here is in the manuscript, but in a disorganised form.

- In the results you should clearly highlight the outcome of the 'qualitative' analysis. If you identified word codes, what is the frequency? For example.

- You did not discuss the results.

- The limitations of the study are inexistent,

- And the implications for management are missing.

 

For all these reasons I consider that the manuscript does not meet the conditions to be accepted.

They need to organize the article, add information on the method, discussion and implications for management. The language should also be more adapted so that fitness managers can apply scientific evidence in practice.

Best regards,

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Very well written and I appreciate your attention to detail in the introduction and background sections of the article.   

I would like to have had more explanation of why you chose to interview 2 males and 7 females for this study and if the duration of the interviews (varying from 30-90 minutes) could have skewed the data.  I would have encouraged you to at least note this as a potential limitation of the study

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The makes a valuable contribution by examining the ways in which gyms and fitness centers' architectural forms reflect normative spaces establishing gendered stereotypes. The paper is well written and well referenced. The editors should definitely consider publishing this article.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

I still consider that the topic you present is important and has implications for fitness managers. However, based on my considerations you have not made any changes considering that what you have done is correct, only changed the limitations. However, there may be more, for example extending the sample to other gyms. And again, you put everything in the method section. The limitations of the study could be, for example, within the conclusions at the end.  Or in a separate section with the title limitations and future studies.

 

I respect your decision.

 

 

(1)   In a qualitative study if it is through primary data, e.g., interviews you should put the characteristics of sample. If it is a qualitative study using secondary data then it does not apply.

 

The material and method section are very confusing with sample + procedures + instrument + data treatment all together. It should justify well the sample, the procedures, the instrument (script of the interviews) and how the data were treated, in separate section. Tables and charts are always interesting.

 

In the instrument, even in semi-structured interviews there must be a script based on literature review or another situation. This has to be explained.

 

(2)   Your results that you called findings should be linked to the data treatment you used and then you should put a title for the discussion of the results. The conclusion of a study is not a discussion of a scientific word.

 

(3)   A scientific article of this nature, which I consider important for fitness managers, has to have implications for managers to adopt better practices. Students and other consumers will be the users of the gyms. Managers if they are sensitive to gender issues can improve their service offering.

 

I still think that the method is confusing and needs information in each sub-title: sample; procedure; instrument; data treatment. It needs a discussion section. Needs implications for fitness managers. After the discussion, for example, you could discuss the implications for gym managers. In the conclusions include at the end limitations and future studies. With this organization your article would, in my opinion, be better suited to the relationship between science and what managers have to do in practice to be more inclusive.

 

For all these reasons I consider that the manuscript does not meet the conditions to be accepted.