Instructions for Reviewers
Reviewer Opinion
Reviewers play a central role in maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and relevance of JOSEP. The journal employs a double-blind peer-review process and expects reviewers to provide fair, constructive, timely, and evidence-based evaluations.
Introduction and Timescale
The Journal of Exercise, Sports, and Performance (JOSEP) is a non-profit scientific electronic journal for experimental reports, case studies, and review articles in the fields of sports sciences, exercise physiology, and human performance. Only a minority of the papers submitted can be accepted, and it is necessary that a paper makes a substantial contribution to knowledge before it will be published. Essentially descriptive studies or data reports that do not extend beyond a descriptive level will not usually fulfill this requirement.
We particularly wish that this journal achieves a reputation for the care, incisiveness, and promptness of its peer-review process. Please do not accept a paper for reviewing if you cannot commit yourself to completing a review within four weeks of receiving it. The deadline date for your report is contained in the enclosed invitation email. Despite the obvious need to avoid unreasonable delay, never sacrifice thoroughness for a swift response.
Please note that the Journal uses a double-blind peer-review system. Please submit your review exclusively through the online journal system. Keep the copy of the manuscript, as you may be asked to review any revised versions, until the final decision on the paper has been made.
Your Report
On occasions, it may not be necessary to dwell in detail in framing a report. These are generally cases where the paper is so badly prepared as to be virtually incomprehensible. There may also be cases where the experimental design is irretrievably flawed. Where a contribution is too slight for acceptance but does hold some interest, it may be worth gently encouraging the author to do further work towards a more substantial paper.
Probably all manuscripts will be improved by some revision before publication. Even when you wish to recommend acceptance, there will probably be various specific proposals that you can make towards improving the paper.
It is not necessary for Reviewers to give their attention to the conformity of a paper with the Journal's conventions on style. Nevertheless, minor alterations may be suggested by electronic annotations on the manuscript file (e.g., using Track Changes).
Please enter your comments in the designated fields in the online review system or on the provided Evaluation Form. You may differentiate between General and Specific Comments. Please point out the strengths and weaknesses of the paper.
Please do not make a recommendation as to acceptance or rejection within your written report to the authors. Instead, please make your summary recommendation using the "Recommendation" menu in the online system.
Pre-Review Checklist
Please consider the following questions before framing your written report:
- ✓ Does the paper sufficiently advance knowledge to merit publication?
- ✓ Is the content of the paper within the scope of this journal?
- ✓ Is the presentation sufficiently clear and precise?
- ✓ Could the experiment(s) be repeated from the descriptions and references given?
- ✓ Are the illustrations/tables necessary and adequate?
- ✓ Are the aims clearly defined and followed?
- ✓ Are the statistical analyses appropriate and clear?
- ✓ Are the conclusions justified by the experimental evidence?
- ✓ Are the references adequate? (Strict adherence to APA 7th Edition guidelines?)
- ✓ Does the abstract accurately describe the work performed and the conclusions drawn?
