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.
All reviewers assessed your manuscript as worthy of publication. I myself rate it as an excellent manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors adequately addressed my comments.
The authors adequately addressed my comments.
The authors adequately addressed my comments.
My suggestion to authors is to always evaluate statistical assumptions based on hypothesis testing in their subsequent research.
Basically, this manuscript is well-written and easy to understand. In addition, the background is well-written. However, as each reviewer pointed out, you need to describe your methodology in more detail, such as how you determined the sample size.
**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.
Some major revisions are needed.
The experimental design is well structured. What were the eligibility criteria?
How was the sample determined?
There is no description of the power analysis and in which program was the power analysis done and on which test was it based, please provide full details.
It was not stated in which program the data analyzes were performed.
Parametric approaches were used without an explanation for the distribution of the data. How was normal distribution examined?
Were all assumptions met for multivariate regression analysis? These should be stated in the analysis section.
The discussion lacks a clear emphasis on the practical implications of the study's findings. How can coaches, athletes, or sports organizations use this information to enhance training or performance? Including practical applications adds value to the research.
Thank you for your submitted manuscript entitled, “Attitude towards healthy nutrition and mental toughness: A study of taekwondo athletes’’. The area of the research is interesting; however, it needs a few amendments. Overall, the paper is well-written. The manuscript is well-structured, and it is easy to follow the sections.
The introduction provides a proper background of the topic and there is a well-presented novelty.
The key words should be different from the words in the title.
The quality of the images (tables) is good enough, but I don’t know if the reviewing version has lower resolution than the final version. If not, images should have better resolution in its final size.
It seems that the English is clear, but research articles usually do not use the word "we/our" and regularly use passive verbs (lines 22 and 196, as well as 265 and 325).
The experimental design meets the scope of the journal, and the hypotheses are well-defined and relevant to the community.
Methods and methodology are described detailed enough.
Most of the results are quite interesting and are well discussed.
In the Discussion it would be better to have seen more use of terms like 'originality' and 'significance'. Identify what is new in this study that may benefit readers or how it may advance existing knowledge or create new knowledge on this subject. There should be a clear conclusion on why the research findings are significant.
1. The manuscript is well-written and easy to understand
2. The background information is written in detail
1. Hypotheses are defined clearly, and research aims and data collection are clearly described
2. The model variables should be well-defined especially the data type, for example, the outcome mental toughness is a numerical variable or a categorical variable?
3. In the data analysis part, multiple statistical methods are mentioned. However, the assumptions should be checked before implementing those statistical models.
1. The tables show the statistical analysis results, and the results are discussed in a detailed way.
2. The conclusion is linked to the research aim, again, if the statistical analysis part can be interpreted better, the conclusion would be more solid.
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.