STIHL Timbersports^® and the Reconceptualization of Modern Sport in the Light of Decontextualization and Eventification of Forestry Work

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript cannot be included in the "article" typology is closer to an attempt at essay.

It is not obvious what is the novelty of this study and what are the arguments that will contribute to the expansion of knowledge regarding the reconceptualization of modern sport in the light of decontextualization and eventification of forestry work

 I think that the overall structure and writing of introduction part are not clear and well-aligned because it is not easy to catch what the research questions and strategies in this paper. Please clearly describe those things. As you already knew, the introduction section is one of the most important parts not only to draw attention of readers but also to provide guidelines for them to facilitate a clear understanding of the paper.

This paper did not provide the part about the novelty of study So, it is very difficult for me to be sure that the research has an enough level of theoretical value and contribution. I think that this is the critical flaw of this paper. Please provide the part in an elaborated way. Please underline the novelty of the study related to previous studies.

The article does not follow a logical structure for selecting information and sources.

In the methods part it is not clear how the sources were selected, it seems that everything is random.

The Discussions section is not logically structured and contains irrelevant information.

The conclusions are only partially relevant in the context of the topic of the manuscript.

The references are not correct cited, and also the references section are not in accordance with the journal rules.

 

 

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a valuable contribution to the field in an area that is under researched. Applications and similarities to the research feels like eSports, power lifting, World's Strongest Man type competitions. 

Where the article needs improvement however is that the method needs more detail around what was done. You need to be specific in terms of how many documents / competitions were analysed and how was this done? The systematic academic rigour needs to be demonstrated. 

Also, the citations need careful attention. Several are still seemingly in note form containing X, X.  

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The idea for the article "STIHL Timbersports® and the reconceptualization of modern sport in the light of decontextualization and eventification of forestry work" presented for review is very interesting. The author found a previously undescribed research gap in terms of the negligible knowledge of various sports activities resulting from professional work. This example is about lumberjacks, but also there are many professions for firefighters, policemen and other professional groups. I agree with the author that there is a need to describe the social foundations of sport activity of these professional groups (and the professions for them). After reading the article, I am not convinced, however, that the author presents the full context of the phenomenon of this physical activity. The main objection is that the current definition of sport has not been combined with its division, and the reference is made to the STIHL competition described and the attempt to qualify it in a specific field of sport. Due to the fact that the goal was defined as "The aim is to grasp the different processes that 8 challenge our common positions regarding sport, which may in turn progress sport beyond the prevalent conceptualization of 'modern sport'", compare this with the definition of sport (present in sports science) is very important to be able to carry out the full "process" of describing.

Objections are also raised by the very nature of the "scientific" nature of the article, which was also noted by the author, piszcząc (498-499) "This article has essentially had the character of an essay, in the vocabulary of Michel de Montaigne". I understand that this type of conceptualisation work is very difficult to "dress" in a scientific framework, but I recommend that by presenting analogies (e.g. to traditional sports) show the similarities and differences (also in terms of media recognition, training, etc.) )

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript was improved according with the recommendations. 

Author Response

See attached file!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

When checking the submitted article for the second time, it disappoints me that the authors did not make an effort to respond individually to each of the reviewers. It is all the more important that some of the earlier comments were not applied, and the letter from the authors does not contain information about the reason for such action.

It is also worth noting that the form of the essay itself is the most correct and respected in the academic discourse, but if there are errors in the structure of the essay (as in this article), it is impossible not to notice it.

Summing up, please read the previous comments again, including showing the entire process of sport, including training, which was missing in the presented article.

When improving the work, I am asking you to use the literature from 2018-2022.

Author Response

See attached fil

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf