All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Authors,
Your manuscript is now acceptable for publication in its current form.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
NO COMMENT
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have addressed my comments appropriately. I have no more comments.
The authors have addressed my comments appropriately. I have no more comments.
The authors have addressed my comments appropriately. I have no more comments.
Dear Authors,
Please revise according to the suggestions of the reviewers or write a detailed rebuttal on a point-by-point basis.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
We suggest a proofreading by a fluent English speaker.
Also, it is found that the approach to the sport has a crucial role in it's effect. This doesn't necessarily has to be a high-contact sport : "A "win-at-all-costs" philosophy has often led to unethical and aggressive behaviors, impacting negatively and destructively on the development and well being of young athletes and of society at large. Researchers (e.g.; Arms, Russell, & Sandilands, 1979; Bredemeier, Weiss, Shields, & Cooper, 1986; Ewing, Gano-Overway, Branta, & Seefeldt, 2002; Guivernau & Duda, 2002; Terry & Jackson, 1985)"
We suggest more details and information should be included. Since there was no association between sport interventions and lower aggression after the period of 6 months, it is questionable if the effect is the result of sport interventions or the effect of attention given to the sportsmen as well as other influences of the process. Also, different sports of the same type, for instance mma vs brasilian jiu jitsu ( jiu jitsu doesn't teach stiking), may have different results on aggression, which begs the question of the impact of the philosophy of a specific sport. If sport itself is not associated with lower levels of anger, we can not exclude that the philosophy, the impact of teaching and attention payed may still play an important role. We could suggest that sport interventions may be used along with psychosocial support to have a more positive effects.
We suggest more information about the limitations such as the fact sports was looked at as one variable. Some studies mentioned suggest different conclusions. Since there are many types of very different sports that fit into the same category as well as the approach of the coaches (it there was always one present) which may have a role in the effect of the mentioned variable, this may play a role in the results.
The review only suggests the possibility of sports interventions reducing aggression, but since the limitations of the studies used in the pool are significant and the variables aren't clear since every study had it's own variables, we suggest the conclusion also notes that further studies are necessary to make clear which variables are actually the ones causing the effect. No cultural aspects were addressed, which may play a significant role. Also no effect of the intervention itself as a form of attention was addressed.
The study was well-designed, and the authors clearly described the literature search criteria, definition outcomes, and search process. Two comments:
What type of studies included in the analysis, cohort, case-control, or any other type of studies? The study design of the included studies may impact the interpretation of the study results.
The study results show high I^2, which means considerable heterogeneity. Given that, are the results reliable from the analysis? The authors touched on this topic in the limitation a little bit, but did not discuss the potential impact of the study result interpretation.
NA
NA
In this manuscript, the authors review articles that investigate the effect of sports characteristics on the aggression behavior of children. They deem 15 articles, all in English, to be suitable for this review.
I think this is a reasonable review article and can be accepted with minor revisions:
1. Line 125: Karen et a -> Karen et al
2. Line 165 and several other places have mentions of delinquent acts. Please describe or give an example of these acts
3. Line 167: .... carried out an single experiment..... -> carried out a single experiment
4. Line 259: ... sport was a ritualize venting....-> sport was a ritualized venting
The description of the Methods is lacking in this manuscript. I am unclear on what the I^2 means as reported in the text in several lines, e.g., Line 178. Please add the description of the methods used more clearly
I believe the findings are valid but the methodology needs to be more descriptive. See my comment above
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.