Reviewer ’s report  
Title: "I don't need a flat tummy; I just want to run fast" - Self-understanding and bodily identity 
of women in com petitive and recreational sports"  
 
Version: 0 Date: 17 May 2018  
 
Reviewer: Thelma Horn  
 
Reviewer's report:  
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an 
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated v ersions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
 
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.  
 
As indicated in the title, the primary focus of the study  described in this manuscript was to 
compare the perceptions and experiences of adult women who were participants in sport at either 
a competitive or recreational level.  The study sample consisted of 20 women who were sport 
participants at one of the two levels. One -on-one interviews were conducted with all participants. 
Obtained data were interpreted using qualitative procedures.  
 
This manuscript does focus on a topic that is certainly of interest to researchers in a broad range 
of academic areas (e.g., women's studies, sport and exercise psychology, medicine, exercise 
science, health).  In addition, studies that are designed to exa mine the motives, experiences, and 
perceptions of individuals who participate in sport or physical activity at different levels are 
generally a welcome addition to the literature.  However, I do have some 
questions/concerns/recommendations regarding the ma nuscript.  These are detailed below.  
 
1. The primary purpose/focus of the study is stated quite differently throughout the manuscript. 
The title indicates that the study will "compare women in competitive and recreational 
sports". In the abstract, the purp ose is "to investigate the specific psychological differences 
of the importance of exercise for their self -understanding and bodily identity". On page 3, 
the authors state that they "will focus on self -oriented and interactional motivation for 
competing". On page 5, the study aim is to "explore aspects of exercise identity with a 
special interest in the aspect of competition". In a research study, the specific 
purpose/goal/aim of the study needs to be clear and consistent across all parts of the 
manuscript.  As a reader, I found it somewhat difficult to understand what the primary focus 
of the study actually was.  
2. The introductory section (pages 3 to 5) was also somewhat unclear. Specifically, in this 3 -
page section, the authors mentioned a fairly large num ber of theories and psychological 
constructs (e.g., interactional theory of self, familiar delegation, goal orientation, intrinsic 
motivation, self -identity, narcissism, perfectionism). Although all of these theories and 
constructs may be important to the sport/activity engagement process, none of these are 
covered in any detail in the literature review. Thus, the overall rationale for the study is not 
very clear. The primary purpose of the introductory section (literature review) is to provide a  
rationale (based on theory and previous research) for the need/value/uniqueness of the 
current study relative to the current knowledge base. In particular, the primary theoretical 
framework(s) and constructs on which this study is based should be reviewed in some de pth 
in the introductory section.  
3. In general, the two study samples are clearly described. But, for the women labeled as 
"competitive" athletes, the authors indicate that they were elite and that they competed at 
national/international levels. What does this mean? What levels are represented here (e.g., 
World Games participants, Olympic participants, international youth level, national master's 
level)?  
4. What questions (or examples of questions) were used in the interview? As a reader, I really 
had no i dea as to the type of data that were obtained. For example, the questions that were 
used to obtain data on "respondents' motivations to exercise and to compete (or not), and the 
social contexts of their exercising" (top of page 7) should be specified/expla ined in some 
detail. The authors do note on page 10 (top) that there was a "question guide (see Table 1)", 
but I couldn't find Table 1 in the manuscript. Perhaps it is missing?  
5. The table showing the demographics of the study participants should really b e moved to the 
Methods section. Also, the first paragraph in the discussion that focuses on the material 
from the demographic table should also be moved to the Methods section. This likely should 
not be a part of the study analyses.  
6. The particular quali tative process that was used in this study to examine the data needs to be 
more completely explained. What is "a systematic text condensation" (page 7)? On page 10, 
the authors indicate that 8 questions were used as a guide in the analyses of the data. In 
particular, the authors state that these 8 questions were "developed in psychodynamic 
interactional therapy to analyse group processes". Does this apply to the current study where 
the data were collected in one -on-one format?  
7. The results are presented i n a very descriptive format (i.e., just summarizing what 
participants said). Were there any underlying themes?  
8. It is difficult to see how the study results provide any new perspectives on the 
motives/perceptions/values/attitudes of these two groups of women exercisers. There doesn't 
seem to be much depth to the thematic analysis of the participant responses. Specifically, the 
results focus more on "surface" type of information (birth order, parent participation in 
sport/physical activity and their encou ragement of it for their children, primary motive for 
sport participation, etc.). Very little of the results take a "deeper dive" into the 
motives/perceptions of the study participants. Thus, the information described in the results 
section are mostly a re plication of what has been found in previous, more quantitatively 
based, studies. Typically, qualitative studies provide much more depth in terms of new 
knowledge as compared to that obtained from descriptive/quantitatively -based studies. 
These results see m more similar to those obtained in the quantitative research.  
9. Similarly, the discussion is quite general, with little insight into the topic. How do the results 
obtained from this study fit into the theories that were identified in the review of the 
literature? How do these results compare to that of others in the field? What can we 
conclude about the psychological differences between the two groups of exercisers? The 
authors do introduce new ideas such as narcissism, parental delegation, perfectionism,  but I 
don't see where these are reflected in the results. That is, what part of the results section 
presents information on these issues?  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
No 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are re quired in your comments to the authors.  
Unable to assess  
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
No 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
addi tional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
Not relevant to this manuscript  
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality  of language in the manuscript:  
Acceptable  
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary fr om an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication o f this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that  I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the  authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Common s 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open pee r review policy of the journal