The Comparison of the Level of Aggressiveness of Oyama Karate and Mixed Martial Art Fighters
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. The article is interesting but needs major revisions.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments, which all have been considered and incorporated. The detailed list of responses is given below. We hope that the modifications and explanation will be acceptable for you.
Yours sincerely,
Łukasz Rydzik
1.I recommend adding the aim of study.
A: This has been corrected
2.I recommend adding the main results of your study.
A: This has been corrected
3. A meaningless sentence if the factors are not mentioned.
A: This has been corrected
4. The introduction is too long and I recommend rewriting it because it maintains redundant information.
A: This has been corrected. The introduction has been shortened by two paragraphs .
5. The discussions should be rewritten because they do not highlight the similarities and differences reported in previous studies. You must highlight the importance of the most significant results recorded in your study in correlation with previous studies. The discussion part is very important in highlighting the relevance of the results recorded by your study. Recommend rewriting and expanding the discussion section
A: The discussion has been rewritten.
6. We recommend completing the conclusions with the relevant ideas identified following the study. These conclusions are too general.
A: The conclusion has been rewritten.
7. We recommend writing bibliographic references in journal format.
A: The literature was corrected using Mendeley (Elsevier). Manual modifications were then made.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have responded to the comments decently.
Author Response
Thank you
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors improved the manuscript according with the recommendations.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article declares that physical aggression is the type of aggression dominating in the evaluated fighters, and results indicate that the greatest difference between both groups of fighters was in Verbal aggression, the smallest – in Hostility.
The whole manuscript is well-organized, however, the experimental and statistical methods, along with the results are too simple and trivial, which are lack of scientific soundness.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article addresses the interesting topic of sports aggression, but there are some major issues that are insufficiently addressed and detailed in this manuscript.
The aspects of the novelty of the study and the theoretical and practical arguments for this study are not highlighted.
The Material and Method section is incomplete.
The following essential aspects are not mentioned: the research period, the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the study, the research design.
The statistical processing and interpretation of the results is simplistic and not specific to the questionnaires.
The discussions do not show the correlation between the main results identified in the study and those of previous studies.
The bibliographic references are insufficient to support the relevance of the study.
