Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Sports, Exercise, and Performance (JOSEP) conducts its peer review process in accordance with the principles of impartiality, confidentiality, transparency, and academic integrity in order to ensure the scientific quality, originality, and ethical compliance of published manuscripts.

Review Model

Research articles and review manuscripts submitted to JOSEP are first evaluated through an editorial screening process and, when appropriate, sent to independent reviewers with relevant expertise. The journal follows a double-blind peer review model, aiming to protect the identities of both authors and reviewers during the review process.

The peer review process is designed to evaluate the scientific contribution, methodological quality, ethical compliance, relevance to the literature, validity of findings, and suitability of the manuscript for the journal’s aims and scope.

Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are initially reviewed by the editor or a relevant section editor. At this stage, the manuscript is assessed for suitability to the journal’s scope, compliance with author guidelines, ethical declarations, similarity status, file completeness, and basic scientific quality.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, lack required ethical declarations, fail to meet academic writing standards, or are considered unsuitable for peer review may be rejected without external review or returned to the authors for preliminary revision.

Reviewer Assignment

• Reviewers are selected according to the topic, methodology, and area of expertise required by the manuscript.
• Care is taken to avoid assigning reviewers who may have a direct conflict of interest with the authors.
• The journal generally aims to obtain at least two independent reviewer reports for each manuscript.
• Additional reviewer opinions may be requested when necessary.
• Reviewers who accept an invitation are expected to provide scientific, constructive, and well-justified evaluations.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

• Originality and contribution to the literature
• Clarity of the research question, aims, and hypotheses
• Appropriateness and scientific quality of the methodology
• Validity of the sample, measurement tools, and data analysis procedures
• Clarity, consistency, and accuracy of the findings
• Alignment of the discussion and conclusions with the results
• Appropriateness of ethical approval, informed consent, and ethical declarations
• Relevance and currency of the references
• Quality of language, presentation, tables, figures, and overall manuscript structure

Editorial Decision Types

Based on reviewer reports and editorial evaluation, one of the following decisions may be made:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
• Minor Revision: Limited revisions are required before publication.
• Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required in terms of method, analysis, discussion, structure, or content.
• Re-review: The revised manuscript may be sent for further peer review.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to scientific, ethical, or scope-related reasons.

The final publication decision is made by the editor, taking reviewer comments into account. Reviewer reports serve as recommendations; the final decision remains an editorial responsibility.

Revision Process

When a revision decision is issued, authors are expected to respond to reviewer and editor comments in detail. Authors should clearly indicate the changes made and, when necessary, submit a response letter together with the revised manuscript.

After revision, the manuscript may be evaluated directly by the editor or sent back to reviewers if further expert assessment is needed.

Confidentiality

All manuscript files, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and decision processes are confidential. Reviewers must not share the manuscripts they evaluate with third parties or use them for personal or academic purposes.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline review invitations if they have personal, academic, financial, or institutional conflicts of interest with the authors. Editors should also withdraw from the decision-making process when a conflict of interest exists or ensure that an appropriate editorial assignment is made.

Note on Review Timelines

JOSEP aims to complete the peer review process within a reasonable timeframe without compromising scientific rigor. However, review duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, the extent of required revisions, editorial workload, and the subject area of the manuscript.