Benefits of Interoceptive Awareness: A Correlational Study of the Distinct Sport Education Program among Slovak University Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article has some deficiencies that should be incorporated.

Keywords: change the words to other terms that do not appear in the title.

The authors should clearly state the aim or aims of the study and, if appropriate, the hypotheses. This should be done in the last paragraph of the introduction.

This section should be developed in greater depth in accordance with the aspects highlighted in the discussion and conclusions section.

 

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Study Participants. The data on the sample SD; women, men, etc., need to be improved.

2.2 Theoretical and practical knowledge. This is a key section for understanding the article. It should be explained in great detail.

2.3. Kunning-Kruger effect. Put in annex the questions formulated. Explain very well the dimensions or factors studied by the questionnaire.

Please indicate whether the results of this study were made known to the participants.

3. Results

Tables. Do not put values 0.00. It is incorrect, improve by <.001

The results should not be confused with the discussion section. They should be limited to presenting the most relevant data of the study according to the objectives.

4. Discussion

The first paragraph of the discussion should recall the objectives of the study.

This section should try to discuss the main aspects considered in the theoretical framework. It should be improved.

5. Conclusions

Identify more clearly and elaborate more precisely on the limitations of this study.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments which will help us broaden our knowledge, perspective in the context to our contribution and beyond.

Thank you once again

With respect

Ivan Uher

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study aimed to determine the training and self-evaluation of cognitive abilities in students of the Special Physical Training program in security forces. Ninety-six students from 18 to 24 years old years. In this context, it is suggested that the title can be changed, because the idea should be: The development of cognitive skills among enrolled students in the special physical training program in the security forces of a region of Slovakia. The objectives of the research are clear and the methodology is well adapted to what you want to observe. Overall, the article is well written. Some important tips to check: line 120: The test performed to indicate the assumption of normality must be indicated. Line 291: It is suggested to improve the conclusions and also to mention the objectives again, to avoid misinterpretations.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your valuable comments which will help us broaden our knowledge, perspective in the context of our contribution and beyond. 

Thank you once again.

With respect

Ivan Uher

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This study has theoretical and practical meaning to physical education teaching and training. However there are several concerns: 

1. Did not state the purpose or hypothesis or research questions obviously in the section of introduction.
2. Did not give clear definitions to variant terms, e.g. knowledge awareness, ideomotor awareness, theoretical knowledge, practical knowledge etc. And their relationships or the frame of theory you used in the study.
3. Need improvement in clear and logical expressions in the whole manuscripts, typical example including Lines 98-105.
4. In the section 2. Materials and Methods, please provide more detail information including: class numbers and content for the students in different years; example questions you used in the tests; how you conduct the tests; why you used 9 months to conduct the tests? etc.
5. Statistical analysis issues are identified also. For example, in lines 248-256, besides the descriptive statistics analysis, inferential statistics analysis should be employed. Describe which variables are used for the different data analysis methods.
6. Discussions and conclusions are not well supported by results.
7. Line 93: How many first-year students? Males? Females?
8. Line 148: "KU" did not appear above. What is KU?
9. Line 188: How do you get "7.5%"?
10. Line 194: Please describe how you get Figure 1?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your valuable comments which will help us broaden our knowledge, perspective in the context of our contribution and beyond. 

Thank you once again

With respect

Ivan Uher

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations to the authors. Now the manuscript has improved its quality.

Please in tables 4, 6, 8  put the sign < before 0.01

Author Response

Point 1: Your manuscript title does not accurately reflect its contents. Please suggest another title. 

Response: Self-assessment of cognitive abilities and its elucidation among students enrolled in the special physical training in security forces program in Slovakia.

Point 2: Please avoid using commas in some of the numbers in the table (table 2 and table 6)

Response: Corrected Line: 171, 202

Point 3: The discussion is poorly contextualised particularly in the opening section. Please offer a critical analysis.

Response: Critical analysis is included in Lines: 335-365

Thank you for your time and effort to progress and optimise our paper. We are grate full for that. 

With respect

I.Uher