Sustainable Development of Olympic Sport Participation Legacy: A Scoping Review Based on the PAGER Framework
Elsa Cristina Sacramento Pereira
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I am thankful for the opportunity to read this manuscript and provide my feedback on it. I have found this article very interesting, and it will allow us to have a deeper understanding in this area.
Despite my general agreement with the overall importance of the topic this manuscript addresses, I have some concerns regarding the manuscript at its current status:
Results – line 231/233 – should be part of the discussion session “The reason for this is speculated in this paper to be inspired by the goals of the London 2012 Olympic Games which were the first in history to claim to encourage sports participation for all by hosting the Games (DCMS, 2009; Lon-
don Assembly, 2010; Weed, 2012; Darko and Mackintosh, 2016).
Discussion – Most of the discussion remains on the surface. It would help to incorporate more articles to improve the discussion, e.g. line 481-484 – “Many studies have shown that relevant government policies and measures can directly or indirectly influence whether the Olympic Games are effective in promoting increased sports participation among the local population. In most cases, one of the government's objectives in bidding to host the Olympic Games is to increase the population's sports participation through the Games, resulting in a harmonious and healthy development of society” (lack of references of this studies). There are others systematic reviews that could help to improve the discussion, e.g. Santos et al. (2020) Educational Dimension of the Olympism: a systematic literature review.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
A very well written and interesting article.
The Review is well down - especially Methodology.
If there is something to improve, Authors should
give more emphasis to the conclusion.
This section should be deepened.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The problem addressed is relevant and up-to-date. The article is a systematic literature review.
The scope of considerations does not indicate that the research process was systematic. The period of literature research has not been interpreted, and is actually limited to the time period immediately before and after the Beijing Olympics.
The research assumption should be formulated in the form of a hypothesis or several hypotheses that would unambiguously organize the argument and indicate specific research achievements.
The scope of the conducted analyzes and the research methodology do not raise any objections, taking into account that the article is a literature review.
The Discussion does not refer to literature at all (?!).
The Conclusion was drawn very perfunctorily and actually constitutes information about the limitations of the research, or about further research directions.
The scope of the literature presented in the References is very limited, it is only 52 sources, and the Authors declare that they found a much larger number of articles on the subject matter, of which 54 sources were subjected to detailed analysis.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors. Thank you kindly for your responses to the review. I accept the scope of the changes made.
