The Online Assessment Tools of the MenPas 1.0 Platform, a Reliable and Sustainable Alternative for Psychosocial Research: A Literature Review
, Verónica Morales-Sánchez 2, José L. Pastrana-Brincones 3,4, Carolina Sánchez-GarcÃa 2, Antonio Hernández-Mendo 2, Coral Falcó 5 and Rafael Enrique Reigal 2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript ‘Online assessment tools…’ assesses different aspects of the MenPas 1.0 platform comparing a paper and pencil version with a digital online version
Comments:
(1) Language: needs correction; there are errors in capitalization and tense
(2) Provide context to the tool tested earlier in the manuscript so that the reader will know what the tool is about (psychological testing in sports)
(3) Introduction can be abridged, confined to the relevant aspects of the study
(4) There are redundant words and verbosity; to be improved upon: eg, ‘Thanks to’, ‘it may be that’
(5) Redundant material included in results. Can form part of introduction or methods, without repetition
(6) Some can go to Discussion section
(7) To simplify, summarise the results and discussion.
(8) Present the limitations of the study, viz asymmetric comparison of the two methods because they were not designed for such an analysis, the limited applicability of the results: geographic and demographic characteristics of the participants
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNeeds to be abridged
Verbose
Repetitions in presentation
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for giving me the opportunity to review a manuscript on Online Assessment Tools of MenPas 1.0 platform. I had read the manuscript with great interest. However, I have several observations which will help authors in enhancing the overall quality of their research work:
1. The Abstract should start with a capital letter i.e. New
2. Pg. 1, Line 19, "In addition.....20 years." This sentence seems to be confusing and doesn't exactly reflect what do the authors intend to convey.
3. Abstract should also give a detail about the survey like sample size and how the respondents were contacted?
4. Pg.1, Line 21, "Finally, this was considered to explain the possible relation with sustainability." What is "this" here? I could not understand what is so important about this line that it finds a place in the ABSTRACT.
5. Pg. 1, Line 22, "The results showed a higher number of participants". What the authors meant by higher number of participants. Authors need be very careful while writing the abstract. The abstract needs to highlight the most important contribution and its implications. The abstract in the current manuscript is a below standard abstract.
6. Keywords must highlight the key contribution of the research. Most of the keywords used by the authors didn't find a place in the Abstract. Are they not worth mentioning in the ABSTRACT? For instance "carbon footprint".
7. The manuscript fails to adequately explain why this study is required. The introduction section has to be written to clearly indicate the contribution of the study. Overall, the motivation to conduct the study is poor.
8. There should be a section on Literature review which should present critically what other scales are present and how your proposed scale is going to be a better one in comparison to the existing one.
9. What is handsearching in line 137, pg. 03.
10. Confusing sentence: "Eligible articles were studies validating and showing psychometric properties of online sport psychology questionnaires in MenPas 1.0 platform, and their respective previous paper-and-pencil studies".
11. Authors kindly check whether the abbreviation of National Institute of Statistics will be (INE) or should it be (NIS)?
12. Could not understand the relevance of Table 1. How does it relate to the study?
13. The manuscript is some what confusing. At times it seems to be a work related to the development of the scale/scale refinement etc. but at certain level it appears that the research is more of an SLR which aims at synthesizing the previous work already carried out by other researchers.
14. Authors are advised to re-write the results and discussion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a literature review on Online Assessment Tools of Menpas 1.0 Platform. In a word, the structure of the article is clear and the writing is good. But it must be said that there are still many problems that need to be revised.
The first is the introduction. The authors should point out the differences between MenPas 1.0 and other tools, as well as the specific contribution and significance of this review.
The second is the method. Authors should describe your retrieval process and the reproducibility of the results in detail. The existing version is very simple.
The third is the result. Obviously, the authors did a poor job in this part, and you just provided some general statistics of the data. But I'd rather see your analysis of the theme and specific content of all the documents. Just statistics are not valuable.
Finally, the discussion part, the authors should echo the research purpose and results, and strengthen in-depth thinking, rather than simply summarizing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript reads much better
However, the authors are requested to check for correctness of English grammar once more.
For instance, the first sentence in the Abstract reads 'New technologies has improved the efficiency and sustainability of psychosocial research'
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The authors must take another look at English grammar
[For instance, the first sentence in the Abstract reads 'New technologies has improved the efficiency and sustainability of psychosocial research']
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form as the authors have responded to the comments.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made a good revision. Congratulations. But please proofread your references and grammar again before publication.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
