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.
Thank you for revising your manuscript to address the concerns of the reviewers. Reviewers 1 and 2 now recommend acceptance and the minor issues mentioned by reviewer 3 can be resolved by our production department. The manuscript is therefore ready for acceptance.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
The authors have made all the necessary revisions to the article and improved its quality.
The authors have made all the necessary revisions to the article and improved its quality.
The authors have made all the necessary revisions to the article and improved its quality.
The authors have made all the necessary revisions to the article and improved its quality.
'no comment'
'no comment'
'no comment'
Dear researchers,
Thank you for sending the paper with the corrections. Please consider these final comments, and I will have no further observations.
1. Use of bibliographic references according to the journal's standards. If APA 7th ed. is used, please review the citations when there are more than three authors, as well as the full name of the journal.
2. Replace “P” with “p” in the statistics.
3. The corrected tables are not included in the Word document, but I assume they are corrected in the PDF.
Kind regards.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
The manuscript is written in professional, clear, and grammatically correct English. The structure fully adheres to PeerJ standards (abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, acknowledgments, references). I recommend adding at least one figure (e.g., differences in PSI-S or Stunkard scale between groups), preferably displaying individual values, to meet PeerJ best practices for data distribution visualization and to enable visual interpretation of the obtained results.
The research is original, primary, and within the journal’s scope. The research question is clearly defined and relevant to both the international and local scientific community, especially given the novelty of female sports participation in Saudi Arabia.
Limitations are clearly stated. However, I recommend more strongly emphasizing the limitations regarding causality, as the cross-sectional design does not allow for causal inference. Additionally, it would be beneficial to suggest the validation or adaptation of the Stunkard scale for the Saudi context, given that this instrument may not be fully appropriate or validated for the local population.
The manuscript is thorough, clearly written, and transparent. The presentation of data and methodology allows for replication. The research question is timely and relevant, especially for public health policy and the development of school sports in Saudi Arabia, which is of particular value. I recommend adding graphical representations of the results and discussing the study’s limitations in more detail.
The level of English is satisfactory.
The introduction is informative and sets the context in relation to physical activity, body satisfaction, and sports participation in females.
The structure conforms to PeerJ standards.
The tables are relevant and well described.
The results are interesting and clearly described.
The discussion is clear and satisfactorily argues the results. The literature is well-referenced and relevant.
This paper discusses a topic of public health interest: the influence of physical activity on the perception of body image and self-esteem in female adolescents.
The research question is well defined, relevant, and meaningful.
The design and the methodologies of the study are appropriate.
The manuscript's strengths include the large sample size, the age range studied, and the sociocultural context. The conclusions are consistent with the study's aims and provide appropriate recommendations.
This work is an important contribution of international interest in the field of health promotion and education in children and adolescents.
It is recommended for future studies to also evaluate the appropriateness of the children’s body image perception by attributing a nutritional status to the figure scale and verifying the concordance between the nutritional status of the figure chosen as "feel" and the subject's BMI.
Dear researchers,
Congratulations on your work. I am sending my comments or suggestions to the paper:
Introduction
Lines 57 to 59. Body image is also subjective.
Lines 61 to 62. I suggest revising the wording and leaving the year 1954 out of parentheses. For example, "According to Festinger's Social Comparison Theory developed in 1954 (Festinger, 1954)", or "According to Festinger's Social Comparison Theory proposed in 1954 (Festinger, 1954)".
Lines 65 to 66. There is a change of topic without context. It is necessary to develop an idea that allows both paragraphs to be united in a possible context that could occur thanks to physical activity. For example, these changes may be favorable due to the regular practice of physical activity by athletes, allowing for the possibility of changes in their body image due to... (quote). And then the following paragraph develops the idea of physical activity.
Lines 72 to 80. Citations are required to justify this information. Where is it available?
Lines 84 to 86. There's another variable here: the school context. And this also influences the entire previous story, or how does it influence it?
Lines 87 to 93. This study states two research objectives, but what is the problem that motivated you to develop this study?
Materials and Methods
I think it's necessary to reorganize this section, primarily by including the population and/or sample, design, outcome, procedures, ethical considerations, and statistics.
Results
You present in the document 252 sports participants and 241 non-athletes. The ages range from 12 to 18. However, 439 of them are women of that age. I have the following observations that should be addressed:
1. 252+241=493, but 439 have declared.
2. Table 1 presents the results together, but each sample has different characteristics. Is this the main separation between the groups? It is assumed that there are differences between the two groups. Please present them separately.
3. Table 2 presents them separately here. Please center the numbers and present each status more clearly, as they appear combined and cannot be clearly seen.
Discussion
I believe it should be presented in terms of objectives and results.
Conclusions
Are the objectives being met? Please review your study's variables and confirm they are included in this section.
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.