Narrowing the Definition of Social Inclusion in Sport for People with Disabilities through a Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is indeed very interesting and important. However, I have made the decision to reject the manuscript based on the insufficient information provided in the Methods section. Although the authors state that they followed the PRISMA guidelines, there are several key pieces of information missing. For instance, the authors did not register the revision, which would have enhanced the transparency of the manuscript. Additionally, relying solely on Google Scholars for the search is not adequate. It would have been more appropriate to utilize databases such as Web of Science, PubMed, among others. The eligibility criteria were not clearly presented, and the authors did not specify who performed the search and selection of the manuscripts. Furthermore, there was no mention of a quality evaluation conducted for the included manuscripts. These omissions raise concerns about the rigor of the study. Moreover, I have reservations about whether a systematic review is the most appropriate study design for addressing the research question at hand.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I am pleased to review a review article draft entitled "Narrowing the Definition of social inclusion in sport". First of all, this is ultimately important topic and an interesting perspective of presentation for a piece of such complex information. The aim is ambitious. However, there is room for improvement, and it may require serious work from the authors' side. I invite you to follow a few of my points below, please:

1. Title should be precise sport practice/ performance..., since just sport is a wide term/industry which includes many various stakeholders, e.g. spectators, managers, referees, and volunteers.... (not limited to)

Also, maybe disability/ limited ability should be mentioned as well to better convey the sense... 

In my opinion, the current title does not reflect the content of the review and should be elaborated on. 

2. In the shadow of my first point, I would like to notice, that the focus of this review should be explicitly defined and articulated in the abstract and introduction as well. Notably, "sport" and "inclusion" should be explained through the prism of a particular group (s) of stakeholders the study focuses on, referring to the literature. Since it is a review format, I would recommend to briefly review a term of "inclusion" for other stakeholders, e.g. sport managers and spectators. Please see and include:

Cunningham, G.B. and Hussain, U., 2020. The case for LGBT diversity and inclusion in sport business. Sport & Entertainment Review, 5(1), pp.1-15.

Glebova, E., Desbordes, M. and Geczi, G., 2022. Mass Diffusion of Modern Digital Technologies as the Main Driver of Change in Sports-Spectating Audiences. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, p.805043

3. In general, I cannot avoid noticing that the list of references seems to be insufficient, especially for the review format. Can it be possible to extend the list of the literature, involving recent relevant works?

4. (54-59) Please involve the references, it will enhance the argument. 

5. (59) Please state the study objective at the end of the introduction.

6. (60-83) Too massive piece of the text, difficult to navigate. Can it be possible to split it, please?

7. (287-298) Can a kind of future research directions/ recommendations for investigation be proposed accordingly to the stated limitations? That would be useful. 

 

Thank you for your attention.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

see file attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The linguistic quality is mostly okay, in some places a native speaker could read it properly again.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

--

Minor editing of the English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for the opportunity to improve the quality of our paper.

The paper has been checked for language and style and edited accordingly. Moreover, minor revisions were made.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the effective revisions. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for the opportunity to improve the quality of our paper.

The paper has been checked for language and style and edited accordingly. Moreover, minor revisions were made.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

see file attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf