Best Content Standards in Sports Career Education for Adolescents: A Delphi Survey of Korean Professional Views
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Best Content Standards in Sports Career Education for Adolescents: A Delphi Survey of Korean Professional Views. The topic of the article is of interest and the methodology, although unusual, is also one of the most relevant contributions of the study. Perhaps the consideration of a broader review of the educational system of the labour and sport market in South Korea is necessary to allow the reader to have a more accurate view of the context in which the research was conducted. The precision of the status of student-athlete in the context of research would also be of interest to facilitate the understanding of the reader and the decision-making context of young people. On the methodological side, considering appropriate the different groups of participants in the study, perhaps they could specify the characteristics of the "five university professors with physical education teacher education (PETE)". Are they university professors who teach subjects of the degree in physical education? Are they university professors with the degree/master/doctorate in physical education? Are they professors with the degree/master/doctorate in physical education who teach other subjects in that degree? Another aspect that, in my opinion, should be clarified refers to ("The survey was modified through peer and expert consultation reviews"; lines 156-157), defining the type of methodology used for such consultation and the characteristics of the people who participated in it. In section 4.5. "Ethics" employs a formula of dubious validity when they state (lines 198-199) "The participants gave a verbal agreement or provided their consent to participate through an email", considering the ease of expressing their agreement to participate in the study and the relevance of such an express agreement; in my opinion, they should have the express agreement of all participants. Tables 2 and 3 should be synthesized so that the reader can, if possible, take a single look at them. To do this, they could reduce the width of the columns and, if necessary, use abbreviations as presented in the bottom of both tables to reduce the width of the "content elements" column. (Lines 234-235). "In general, if the consensus is greater tan 0.75, and the convergence is less tan 0.5, the panels opinión is considered reasonable", could you provide any study or reference to support your opinion?. Perhaps greater precision was needed in the similarities and differences between consensus and convergence (lines 188-191). (Lines 271-272). “… and diversity is maintained by following a convergent approach with other subjects”. I believe that clarification is needed on how these processes are produced. (Lines 297-298). "The study offers a new perspective on how to design and develop systematic educational programs for adolescents interested in a career in sports". Perhaps it is necessary to inform about what type of race in the sports field may interest you. (Lines 338-340). An interesting question that allows us to appreciate that, perhaps, studies with a diverse approach may be necessary that allowed not only a study of certain "quantitative" variables but also a precision of how these variables are interpreted by the different actors, genres, age groups, sporting talent, etc.
Author Response
Thank you for your insightful review and the suggestions.
These have helped in further improving the manuscript.
We have revised as an attached file.
Again, thank you and we hope your everything is going well.
Regards
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The analyzed study provides a new perspective on how to design and develop systematic educational programs for adolescents interested in a career in sports. The content standards proposed can guide the decision-making of educators or counselors regarding the best educational content and activities in sports careers.
However, I believe that the subject of the article is not appropriate for the Sustainability. The better choice of publishing place are Journals (MDPI): Education Sciences, Social Sciences or Societies.
Author Response
Thank you for your insightful review and the suggestions.
These have helped in further improving the manuscript.
We have revised as an attached file.
Again, thank you and we hope your everything is going well.
Regards
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see attached review report.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your insightful review and the suggestions.
These have helped in further improving the manuscript.
We have revised as an attached file.
Again, thank you and we hope your everything is going well.
Regards
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
in line 304 is 5.3 should be 4.3
Author Response
Thank you for a good pointing out.
That was a tiny fault however, we believe this revision by you could be way better paper.
We have revised 5.3 in the line 304 to 4.3
Again, thank you so much.
Regards
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
I have been over the paper again and also dived into the letter of response where the authors address the previous comments. I am happy with the revisions and recommend acceptance.
