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 competitive and recreational sports"  
 
Version: 1 Date: 06 Jul 2018  
 
Reviewer: Thelma Horn  
 
Reviewer's report:  
This manuscript represents a revision of one earlier submitted to, and reviewed by, BMC 
Women's Hea lth.  In this revised version of the manuscript, the authors have made changes to 
reflect comments made by the two reviewers.  In addition, the authors have provided a point -by-
point response to all comments/recommendations.   
 
In general, this revised man uscript is stronger than the one previously submitted but also retains 
the positive elements I had noted in my first review.  I do appreciate the additional information 
contained in the revised manuscript (e.g., demographics for study participants, intervi ew 
questions, etc.) that the authors provided in response to reviewer concerns. I do, however, have 
the following comments/recommendations regarding this revised version of the manuscript.  
 
1. Although there is a definite improvement in this second version  of the manuscript in terms 
of being clearer in the study purpose across the different parts of the manuscript, there is 
still some equivocation. For example, in the abstract, the aim of the study is to "investigate 
the self -understanding and bodily identi ty of different forms of exercise". There is no 
mention of the contrast the authors would make between recreational and competitive 
athletes. Nor was any mention made of the influence of others. Within the abstract itself, the 
results focus a lot on family  variables, but this wasn't really a part of the study purpose or 
aim statement. In the beginning of the introductory section, the study purpose is described as 
a focus on the role of the self and of others relevant for exercise motivation. But, at the end  
of the literature review, the aim is to explore different aspects of self -understanding 
regarding female exercise identity with a special interest in the aspect of competition. It 
would really help if the authors identify (at the beginning) a focused, cle ar, specific and 
inclusive study purpose. Then, this same study purpose/focus could be used in the rest of the 
manuscript (i.e., in the methods section to justify the participants that were included, the 
questions that were used, etc.). As the paper is cur rently written, it is hard for the reader to 
see what exactly the authors were interested in examining. Also, the introductory sections is 
not really related to the methods section, nor the results section, etc.  
2. I found this revised manuscript to be ver y difficult to read due to the editing changes that 
were made. I think it is more typical that authors of revised manuscripts provide a thorough 
point -by-point response to each reviewer comment explaining how they made the requested 
changes and then just h ighlight parts of the manuscript that were significantly changed. But, 
using cross -outs and underlining detracts from the clarity of the revised manuscript. Of 
course, maybe this is just the style that this particular scholarly journal uses.  
3. I would sug gest making the organization of the interview questions, the results, and the 
discussion clearer and more closely aligned. Begin the methods section, for example, with 
an outline of the questions that were asked. Part I focused on the participants' 
exercis e/competitive background. Part II focused on family exercise. Part III on participant's 
own motivation to exercise/compete and the social context in which it was done, and Part IV 
examined participant's body image….etc. Then, the results for each part coul d be presented 
using the same outline/organization. This would more closely tie the methods and the results 
together.  
4. I would also advise using more tables. This provides a much cleaner and clearer 
presentation. So, maybe add a table for the four sets o f questions that were asked, of the 
questions used to guide the analyses, and of the themes that were identified.  
 
 
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.  
Yes 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
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 giv e 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 Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand th at 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 peer review policy of the journal