An Intervention into Imagery and Self-Efficacy: Enhancing Athletic Achievements of Alpine Skiers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

An interesting read, which brings a new aspect to imagery and self-efficacy interventions.  Your study has been carefully controlled and soundly based on previous scientific findings.   I would like to see you clearly spell out (in both the abstract and the introduction) what new knowledge this brings to the field.  I can see academics not bothering to read the article, as they see it confirming what they think they already know.

I would like to see a mention of the limitation of the sample size  ( although there is an obvious benefit of such an homogenous group).  Whilst you do end up noting this at line 319 in relation to a lack of statistical significance, a broader acknowledgement/discussion would benefit the paper.  You cite that the main limitation of the study is the use of only alpine skiers but I don't see this as a limitation.  It is the small sample size and the lack of competition data that is the limitation.  You talk of 'athletic achievement' (title) and sport performance (line 8, 404) but the context would be better described as 'in the training environment'.  Future studies can pick up on competition in the context of alpine skiing.  

Please declare the time gap between the initial assessment, each imagery training session, and the final assessment.  This will enable others to replicate your study.  

I regret that I am struggling to understand the results for the two training sessions.  As  I read it, the athletes undertook 3 runs prior to the study commencing and 3 runs post the study interventions.  For each set of runs you recorded the time differential between the two fastest runs.  So, for athlete 1 there was 0.03 of a second between the two times pre intervention, and post intervention there was a time differential of -0.1.  On the whole, the course times did not become quicker pre intervention, but they did in the post tests.  I can see that this indicates that imagery is working for them, but what we don't see is if there is any overall performance enhancement.  How were the conditions controlled for each run?  Did any variables differ?  If not, I would expect to note an overall performance enhancement but you don't comment on this.  You don't present any competition data.  You could suggest this for future research.  

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There were a few typos/syntax errors - here are the line numbers that I noticed:  41, 47-48, 99, 281-282, 352, 400-401

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough review. I have carefully addressed your instructions and comments, making necessary clarifications. I have attachethe updated version of the manuscript with the corrections highlighted in blue.

In this revision, I have defined the novel knowlage contributed by this research within the publication text. Additionally, I have acknowledged the limitation of the sample size and provided clarification on questions and uncertainties pertaining to the research process to ensure its repeatable. Furthermore, I have adjusted future perspectives and areas for further research, particularly focusing on competition insights, which I believe could be very valuable. I have also made some noted typos. After reviewing the text, I found no more mistakes.

Once again, I appreciate your time and effort in reviewing the publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. It is recommended to add reliability to the questionnaire.

2. During the experiment, the psychological intervention was systematically delivered in 12 sessions. Why 12 sessions? Is there any literature support?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I sincerely appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions, which undoubtedly contribute to enhancing the quality of the article.

I have provided and supplement the publication accordingly to your suggestions. The newly added content is highlighted in blue for easy reference.

Following your guidance, I have included reliability indicators for the measuring instruments and provided clearer descriptions of the sessions in the revised text. I wish to note that I have refrained from disclosing specific clarifications about the athletes' training base within the text to maintain their privacy.

Thank you once again for your insightful feedback.