Reviewer Guideline

The peer-review process is a critical component of scholarly publishing. It assists the editor in making an informed decision regarding the manuscript and provides authors with valuable feedback to improve their work.
J. Sport Mov. Sci. operates a double-blind peer-review system, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous.

1. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Reviewers should ensure the following conditions are met before agreeing to evaluate a manuscript:

1.1. Expertise

  • The manuscript must fall within the reviewer’s area of academic expertise.

1.2. Availability

  • Reviewers must be certain that they can dedicate the necessary time to complete the review within the specified deadline.
  • If unable to do so, the reviewer should decline promptly, allowing the editor to find an alternative reviewer.

1.3. Conflict of Interest

A Conflict of Interest (COI) arises when a reviewer’s personal, financial, or professional relationships could influence—or appear to influence—their judgment.

Reviewers must:

  • Declare any potential conflict of interest to the editor.
  • Withdraw from the review process if a conflict exists.
  1. Confidentiality
  • Manuscripts sent for review are confidential documents and must not be shared with anyone without the editor’s explicit permission.
  • The content of the manuscript and details of the review process must remain confidential during and after the review.
  • Reviewers must not use any information obtained through peer review for personal advantage or to harm the authors or any other party.

Breaching confidentiality is considered unethical.

  1. Fairness and Objectivity

Reviews should be honest, unbiased, and based solely on academic merit.

The reviewer’s evaluation must not be influenced by:

  • The origin of the manuscript or author's institution
  • The author’s religious, political, or cultural beliefs
  • The author’s gender, ethnicity, race, or nationality

Scientific content should be the only basis for assessment.

  1. Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, reviewers should consider the following:

4.1. Originality

  • Does the study offer new insights or advance knowledge in the field?

4.2. Contribution to the Field

  • Are the results meaningful and relevant to sport and movement sciences?

4.3. Academic Writing Quality

  • Is the language clear, concise, and scientifically appropriate?

4.4. Clarity of Presentation

  • Are the tables, figures, methodology, and results presented clearly?

4.5. Depth of Research and Methodology

  • Is the methodology appropriate and sufficiently rigorous?
  • Are the results consistent with the stated methods?

4.6. Appropriateness of References

  • Are the sources current, relevant, and credible?
  1. Reviewer Responsibilities During the Review

5.1. Timeliness

Reviewers should accept only those invitations for which they can devote adequate time.
The typical review period is 2–4 weeks, and timely submission of reviews is essential.

5.2. Constructive Feedback

Reviewer comments should be:

  • Clear and specific
  • Helpful and aimed at improving the manuscript
  • Respectful and professional in tone
  • Free from insulting or derogatory language

Constructive critique is a core expectation of scholarly review.

  1. Ethical Principles for Reviewers (COPE)

Reviewers must adhere to the following ethical principles:

  • Maintain strict confidentiality
  • Avoid using manuscript content for personal gain
  • Provide objective and evidence-based feedback
  • Declare any conflict of interest
  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe

All peer-review processes follow COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.