Motivations and Future Intentions in Sport Event Volunteering: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The main aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of literature on studies that have examined the motivation and future intentions of volunteering in sporting events. Regarding the authors, I would like to congratulate and thank them for their effort and motivation involved in this research study. Although, this field of research is interesting, as explained in the work under study, the paper requires clarification of certain issues.

The authors noted that Kim did a similar review in 2017 (covering 1995-2015), but it would be a good idea to update his results. I agree with it. Kim's list, however, included all publications available until 2015 (because the list included studies conducted, among others, by VanSickle et al., Güntert et al., Alexander et al., Or Dickson et al., All published in 2015). Meanwhile, the authors of this article in line 120 wrote that they are updating the list for the next six years (which suggests taking into account also research from the current 2021), and in the discussion in line 438 the authors mentioned five years (2017-2021; what happened with 2016?). Research in the field of motivation to volunteer sports from 2021, unfortunately, was not highlighted in the article, because the list lacks an important study by Rozmiarek et al. (Rozmiarek, M .; Poczta, J .; Malchrowicz-Mośko, E. Motivations of Sports Volunteers at the 2023 European Games in Poland. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6406. DOI: 10.3390 / su13116406). If the search of the articles by the authors was conducted from February 22, 2021, to August 20, 2021, as written, this entry should not be omitted (it was published in early June). The task in the phase of improving the article after the reviews should be at least citing the work [if the authors decide to limit the extension of research to the years 2016-2020, instead of 2016-2021], but the best solution would be to include it in the compilations and update the manuscript and supplementary materials.

In my opinion, the article should also at least mention the article by Lachance et al. (Lachance, Erik L; Bakhsh, Jordan T; Thompson, Ashley; Parent, Milena M. What Predicts the Sport Event Volunteer Experience? Examining Motivation, Satisfaction, Commitment, and Sense of Community. Event Management, 2021, DOI: 10.3727 / 152599521X16106577965107 ). Apart from the Rozmiarek et al. and Lachance et al., the authors may review and possibly supplement the article with items such as: Fairley et al. (Fairley, S.; Kellett, P .; Green, B.C. Volunteering Abroad: Motives for Travel to Volunteer at the Athens Olympic Games. J. Sport Manag. 2007, 21, 41-57) and Silva et al. (Silva, M .; Veloso, A .; Silva, M .; Shiraishi, G. Volunteer emotions and motivations during mega events: the case of Rio 2016 Olympics. Paper from the 49th Annual EMAC Conference, Budapest, May 26 –29, 2020).

Relatively, the authors may also look at Kemp (Kemp, S. The hidden workforce: volunteers’ learning in the Olympics. J. Eur. Industrial Train. 2002, 26, 109–116) and Reeser et al. (Reeser, JC; Berg, RL; Rhea, D .; Willick, W. Motivation and satisfaction among polyclinic volunteers at the 2002 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. Br. J. Sports Med, 2005, 39, 1–5).

Some minor concerns:

In line 149 in table 1. "Database search strategy" some places in search terms are marked with "*", but it is not explained under the table what it symbolizes.

I find the methodology sufficiently described. Although we are dealing with a more theoretical article, there are some study limitations in the study that were indicated in the discussion of the manuscript between the lines, but in my opinion they need to be described in more detail.

In "Supplementary Materials II", please add an additional column with the publication date of each study. This will allow potential readers of your article to quickly select the published works in terms of the most up-to-date items on the subject.

While I really applaud the interesting theoretical idea, this manuscript requires some reviews from the authors in order to make a meaningful contribution to the literature. However, I strongly encourage the authors to continue this work, because I see a real opportunity for publication in Sustainability.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Please find our comments in the attached file.

Warm regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I found the document and the research it contains very interesting. Regarding the article, it is well structured, easy to read and contains all the information necessary to understand the research carried out. The methodology used is adequate and is sufficiently explained. Its strength is the discussion section, in which all the findings found are clearly exposed.
My recommendations and suggestions are only two:
1.- It is recommended to include the limitations of the research at the end of the conclusions.
2.- The authors may consider the following recommendation. It would be interesting, in section 3.7. Relationship between Motivation and Future Intentions, include a graph with the constructs and relationships that the studies indicate with future intentions. (the reference to the study that considers it can be included in each relation).
3. It would also be very interesting to have a list of the motivations identified.
I congratulate the authors for their research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Please find our comments in the attached file.

Warm regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Hello.
The article falls both in the area of the field and continues the research in this direction and presents interesting aspects in the area of volunteering.
The presentation of the research is well documented, with a scientific basis and respects the latest standards regarding the highest level scientific publications.
The conclusions support and result from the research carried out and open new directions for future research. Additional documents are a strong point.
Congratulations for this study
All the best!.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Please find our comments in the attached file.

Warm regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your answers. I am glad to see that the article has been strengthened in many places. I only have two minor comments:

a) I have carefully read section 2.1 on inclusion and exclusion criteria. These rules are clear to me. However, you have to admit that the general reader, who has not read in depth all the articles on volunteer motivation you wrote about, is entitled to wonder why, for example, you did not include the item by Rozmiarek et al. published in Sustainability. This article talks about volunteering and future-oriented activities at an event to be held in the future. If the rules you have adopted do not allow you to include this article, please add at least one sentence to the article informing your potential readers that there are studies described in other articles that deal with volunteer motivation, used one of the scales you cited, but because of certain aspects were not included, and cite this publication (and some others, if you feel appropriate) as an example.

b) Footnote 74 which you added is incorrectly edited. I kindly ask you to bring it in line with the MDPI Instruction for Authors (with the recommendations for footnotes). The footnote is missing the initial of the main author's name. Please correct it and revise the others for this rules as well.

Congratulations on your work. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Please find attached our response to your comments.

Warm regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf