Accessibility of Inclusive Sports Facilities for Training and Competition in Indonesia and Malaysia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comment

The manuscript does not promote significant advances in the barrier of knowledge on the topic it discusses. However, some novelty is presented, especially in the face of athletes' experiences in training environments.

 

In general, the article needs a deep revision in the text; I mean scientific writing, not grammar. Several sentences are wordy and difficult to follow.

 

It is not clear what problem the authors tried to solve with this work. This is due to the introduction, which does not present enough elements for this purpose. A deep contrast to the literature on what has already been produced on the subject was not provided, and the importance of developing this study in Indonesia and Malaysia was not explored. Several countries suffer from the same problems, and it is, therefore, necessary to include other nations in the context as well. If this is not possible, I recommend contrasting and comparing data from other countries with Indonesia and Malaysia. For example, what successful countries in the context studied can teach to mitigate the problems highlighted for athletes from Indonesia and Malaysia?

 

In summary, the current structure of the article does not have merit for publication in Sustainability. Several improvements are needed, especially regarding the fluency of the text in the introduction, and better presentation of methods and results. Finally, the conclusion is vague, extensive, and does not reflect the advances that the study promoted.

 

The following are some questions that clarify my opinion.

 

Introduction

The authors provide a usual structure for the introduction. While this is not wrong, does not properly deliver the clear message of the study. The problem must be better explored, presenting the current possibilities of Indonesia and Malaysia regarding these facilities and explaining how this study will advance in the context. Topics 1.2 and 1.3 deliver different messages. While in 1.2 the authors present relevant data to the context, in 1.3 they only provide some background on the Malaysian athletes.

 

Lines 37 – 40 – These sentences should be merged.

Lines 44 – 45 – This sentence is confusing and wordy.

Line 53 – Adjust the citation of Obst & Stafurik, 2010.

Lines 53 – 57 – It seems that the same message was provided twice. These sentences can be improved.

Line 60 – Some preposition seems to be missing here.

Line 64 – “significant figure” does not sound well.

Line 67 – List these severe difficulties.

Line 74 – the “too” is dispensable.

Line 87-88 – “among other things” is vague.

Line 86 – Following review?

 

Materials and Methods

Provide some organogram or figure explaining the design.

Line 120 – This sentence is severely wordy.

 

Results

The presentation of the results is not pleasant to the reader. I recommend inserting tables with the results in the percentage of each question made to the participants.

 

Conclusion

This section is long but also vague. No clear message was delivered.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

We appreciate the comments on our manuscript “Accessibility of Inclusive Sports Facilities for Training and Competition in Indonesia and Malaysia”. We greatly appreciate the time and effort taken to conduct these reviews, and the constructive feedback provided. The manuscript has been revised as recommended, and detailed responses to the comments are listed in the correction table.

 

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

With regard to the manuscript: Accessibility of Inclusive Sports Facilities for Training and 2 Competition in Indonesia and Malaysia, submitted to Sustainability.

The paper is worthy of publication and the general scope of the study appears to be acceptable. Further, the introduction provides an overview on access to sports facilities, but the novelty of the study could be more highlighted. This needs to be better grounded.

 

Introduction

 

·  I suggest that the authors include more references in the first sentences of introduction.

 

·  People with disabilities. Give a list of examples that can be included in PWD.

 

·  Could give reasons (accidents, diseases..) why Indonesia is one of the countries with a high disability rate.

 

 

Methods

 

·  Describe the profile of athletes in more detail (exercise modality, coach profile, age, weight, lifestyle)

 

·  The authors should be more detailed when writing the methodological cautions (This technique was or not performed by a well-trained executor, time of day, presence of coaches during interviewers ….).

 

Results

 

·  The authors described (by qualitative method) the five major themes: access to training facilities, access to training facilities, access during matches, and athletes' expectations of training and competition facilities, but i strongly recommend the insertion of more data (numerical information).

 

·  About data collection method, it is important describe WHEN? (Time of day, season of data collection), WITH WHOM? or HOW? (the used recruitment technique, Interviewers/researchers were trained or had training in conducting tests, It was reported whether stops or breaks were taken during the tests?).

 

Discussion

·  Didactics would improve with the inclusion a figure in discussion section (some scheme drawn by the authors) explaining their findings.

 

·  It is well written showing interesting interpretation. It is important to reader to know why this paper (focused on facilities in Indonesia and Malaysia) could be useful for science in the world. As mentioned by authors, Indonesia is one of the countries with a high disability rate, but the findings can be may be applicable in any country. I would like this point of view to be more in-depth.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

We appreciate the comments on our manuscript “Accessibility of Inclusive Sports Facilities for Training and Competition in Indonesia and Malaysia”. We greatly appreciate the time and effort taken to conduct these reviews, and the constructive feedback provided. The manuscript has been revised as recommended, and detailed responses to the comments are listed in the correction table.

 

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

first of all thanks for the submission made to Sustainability.

Although the work may be of potential interest, it is evident that there is a lack of bibliographic support throughout the entire manuscript.

This point is evident during the introduction, where the literature review is scarce, which makes it difficult to correctly formulate a study problem and objectives. The methodology used is reductive and therefore I strongly recommend that you try to improve your work before thinking about making a resubmission.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

We appreciate the comments on our manuscript “Accessibility of Inclusive Sports Facilities for Training and Competition in Indonesia and Malaysia”. We greatly appreciate the time and effort taken to conduct these reviews, and the constructive feedback provided. The manuscript has been revised as recommended, and detailed responses to the comments are listed in the correction table.

 

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have worked hard to heed my suggestions, and they need to be congratulated for that. In its current format, the study manages to present new elements. I only recommend improving the graphic quality of the figures. Exporting in higher quality than 300 dpi may solve the problem.

Reviewer 2 Report

Your manuscript has been examined an I think the manuscript has merit.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

after the changes have been made I have no more reservations about the manuscript.