Author Guidelines

Please read these guidelines carefully before preparing your manuscript. Submissions that do not comply with these guidelines will be returned to the author(s) without review. The journal template can be downloaded via the Journal Template link in the sidebar.

1. Scope, Aims, and Article Types
Bima Loka: Journal of Physical Education publishes scholarly work on physical education at all levels of education — from primary school to postgraduate. Relevant topics include, but are not limited to: education and curriculum policy, learning strategies, material development, learning environment development, inclusive and adapted physical education, student participation in physical activity, nutrition and school health services, and the professional development of physical education teachers. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope will be rejected at the initial screening stage without peer review.

The journal accepts the following article types:
Article Type Description Structure
Original Research Article Reports original/primary empirical research using quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, research and development (R&D), or classroom action research designs, presenting new data collected and analysed by the authors. Section 6
Review Article A research article based on a systematic review of the literature — including, but not limited to, Systematic Literature Reviews (SLR), Meta-Analyses, Scoping Reviews, and Umbrella Reviews — developed through a systematic and transparent process of searching, selecting, appraising, and synthesizing the literature. Section 6A
Conceptual Paper Proposes a new or refined conceptual framework, model, or theoretically grounded argument on a physical education issue, built on established theory and cited evidence, without presenting new empirical data. Must state an explicit conceptual contribution and its implications for physical education practice, policy, or future research. Section 6B

Manuscripts consisting of an author's unstructured opinion or commentary — that is, without either a defined methodology (research and review articles) or a clear theoretical grounding and conceptual contribution (conceptual papers) — are not accepted. Authors should indicate the article type in the submission form or in the comments to the editor.
2. Language of Submission and Publication
Manuscripts may be submitted in either Bahasa Indonesia or English. However, all articles accepted for publication must be presented in English in their final published form.

Authors who submit in Bahasa Indonesia are required to provide a complete English translation of their manuscript within 14 days of receiving the acceptance notification. The translated manuscript must meet an acceptable standard of academic English. Authors are strongly encouraged to use professional translation or language editing services prior to submitting the final English version.

The editorial team reserves the right to request further language revision if the submitted English version does not meet the journal's readability standards. Failure to submit an acceptable English translation within the stipulated timeframe may result in withdrawal of the acceptance offer.

Note: Translation and language editing costs are the sole responsibility of the author(s). The journal does not provide translation services.
3. Submission Files — With Author & Without Author
To support the double-blind peer review process, authors are required to submit two separate manuscript files:
File Contents
File 1
With Author		 The complete manuscript including all author-identifying information:
  • Author names and affiliations
  • Corresponding author's email
  • ORCID iD(s)
  • Acknowledgements
  • Funding Statement
  • Conflict of Interest declaration (with names if applicable)
  • Author Contributions (CRediT)
  • AI Disclosure Statement
  • Ethical Statement
  • Data Availability Statement
  • All self-citations written normally
File 2
Without Author		 An anonymized version for reviewer use. All author-identifying information must be removed or replaced with the notation:

[Anonymized for double-blind review]

The following must be anonymized:
  • Author names and affiliations (title page)
  • Corresponding author's email
  • ORCID iD(s)
  • Acknowledgements — replace entire section with [Anonymized for double-blind review]
  • Funding Statement — replace the name of the funding body with [Anonymized for double-blind review] if it could identify the authors (e.g., internal funding from the authors' own institution); grant numbers that do not reveal author identity may remain
  • Conflict of Interest — replace with [Anonymized for double-blind review]
  • Author Contributions — replace with [Anonymized for double-blind review]
  • Ethical Statement — if it contains institution name, replace institution name with [Anonymized for double-blind review]
  • Data Availability Statement — if a repository link or dataset name could identify the authors, replace it with [Anonymized for double-blind review]
  • Self-citations — replace author name(s) with [Anonymized for double-blind review], e.g.: "as reported by [Anonymized for double-blind review] (2023)"
  • Any mention of the authors' institution, city, or research facility in the body text that could identify the authors

Important: The scientific content, methodology, results, and discussion must remain complete and unaltered. Only author-identifying details are to be removed.

Both files must use the official journal template and include continuous line numbering throughout the manuscript (see Section 5). Submissions missing either file will not be processed.
4. Submission Preparation Checklist
Before submitting, authors must confirm that:
  • The manuscript has not been previously published and is not under consideration elsewhere
  • Two manuscript files are prepared: With Author and Without Author
  • Both files are in Microsoft Word (.docx) format using the journal template
  • Both files include continuous line numbering
  • The content is within the scope of Bima Loka: Journal of Physical Education
  • The article type (Original Research Article, Review Article, or Conceptual Paper) is indicated
  • The similarity index has been checked (max. 20% via Turnitin or equivalent)
  • Abstract is 200–250 words
  • Keywords are 3–6 phrases separated by semicolons
  • An Ethical Statement is included where research involves human or animal subjects
  • A Conflict of Interest declaration is included
  • A Funding Statement is included, declaring the funding source or explicitly stating that no external funding was received
  • A Data Availability Statement is included
  • Author Contributions are declared using CRediT taxonomy
  • An AI Disclosure Statement is included
  • References are formatted in APA style with a minimum of 20 references
  • For review-based manuscripts (SLR / meta-analysis / scoping review), the manuscript follows the additional guidance in Section 6A
  • For conceptual papers, the manuscript follows the structure and quality requirements in Section 6B
5. Line Numbering
Both the With Author and Without Author files must include continuous line numbering throughout the entire manuscript. Line numbers significantly assist reviewers in providing precise, targeted feedback and are required by this journal.

To add continuous line numbering in Microsoft Word:
Layout → Line Numbers → Continuous

Line numbers must not be removed from the submitted files. They will be removed by the editorial team in the final production stage.
6. Manuscript Structure — Original Research Articles
All manuscripts reporting original/primary research must follow the structure below using the official journal template.
Section Requirements
Title Maximum 20 words. Sentence case. Must comprehensively reflect the content and variables of the study. Times New Roman 14pt.
Authors & Affiliations
(With Author file only)		 Full names without academic titles. Affiliation: Study Program / Faculty / University / City / Country. Corresponding author's email must be included. ORCID iD is strongly recommended.
Abstract 200–250 words. Written in English. Must cover: objectives, methods, key findings, and conclusions. No citations. Times New Roman 10pt, single spacing.
Keywords 3–6 keywords or phrases separated by semicolons (;). Choose terms that reflect the core topics and support indexing and discoverability.
Introduction Must include: (1) background and context, (2) research problem and research question, (3) objectives of the study, and (4) novelty and contribution to the field. Supported by relevant and up-to-date literature.
Method Must address: (1) research type and design, (2) population and sample/subjects — size, characteristics, sampling technique, (3) procedures, (4) instrumentation — validity and reliability values, and (5) data analysis techniques. Compliance with research ethics must be stated.
Results Present findings objectively without interpretation. Use tables or figures — not both simultaneously for the same data. Numbered consecutively with descriptive captions.
Discussion Interpret findings in relation to existing theory and literature. Highlight novelty and significance. Acknowledge limitations of the study.
Conclusion Continuous prose — not bullet points. Must answer the research objectives. Include implications and recommendations for future research. No new data or information not previously discussed.
Ethical Statement Required for research involving human or animal subjects. Three options accepted: (1) with formal ethical clearance, (2) adherence to Declaration of Helsinki (if no ethics committee available), or (3) ethics approval not required. See journal template for exact wording.
Data Availability Statement Required. State where the data supporting the findings can be accessed (e.g., a repository link), or that the data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, or the reason the data cannot be shared (e.g., participant confidentiality). In the Without Author file, anonymize any repository link or dataset name that could identify the authors.
Conflict of Interest Required for all manuscripts. See journal template for accepted statement options and the Publication Ethics page for the full policy.
Funding Statement
(anonymize in Without Author file if needed)		 Declaration of the research funding source(s) — the name of the funding body and grant number (if any), or an explicit statement that the study received no external funding. In the Without Author file, anonymize the funding body's name if it could identify the authors (e.g., internal institutional funding), following the same anonymization principle applied to Acknowledgements and Conflict of Interest.
Author Contributions
(With Author file only)		 Required. Declare individual contributions using the CRediT taxonomy. Authorship criteria are described on the Publication Ethics page.
AI Disclosure Statement Required. Disclose whether AI tools were used. AI tools may not be listed as authors. See journal template for options and the AI Policy page.
Acknowledgements
(With Author file only)		 Optional. Recognition of individuals, institutions, or funding bodies that supported the research.
References Minimum 20 references. APA style. Use a reference manager (e.g., Mendeley). Journal articles are strongly preferred.
6A. Manuscript Structure for Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and Meta-Analysis

Definition. Review articles, as referred to in Section 1 (Scope, Aims, and Article Types), are research manuscripts based on a systematic review of the literature — including Systematic Literature Reviews (SLR), Meta-Analyses, Scoping Reviews, Umbrella Reviews, and related forms — developed through a systematic process of searching, selecting, appraising, and synthesizing the literature, rather than an author's unstructured opinion or commentary without a defined methodology.

General Structure for Review Articles

Unlike primary research in Section 6, where the Method section reports field data-collection procedures, review articles present the Method as the literature search and synthesis procedure. The general structure is as follows:

Section Content
Title Should reflect the review type undertaken (e.g., include the phrase "a systematic review," "a meta-analysis," or "a scoping review") in addition to the topic and variables studied. Maximum 20 words, sentence case.
Authors & Affiliations Same requirements as Section 6 for primary research.
Abstract 200–250 words, covering: brief background, review objective, search and selection method (briefly stated), number of studies reviewed, key findings, and conclusion. No citations.
Keywords 3–6 keywords/phrases, separated by semicolons.
Introduction Background of the topic, gaps in the existing literature, the review question(s) or objectives, and the novelty/contribution of this review relative to prior similar reviews (if any).
Method Describes the review process rather than field research procedures — covering search strategy, eligibility criteria, study selection process, data extraction, and synthesis method. Details for each component follow the guidance table below.
Results Presents the outcome of the study-selection process (typically accompanied by a flow diagram), characteristics of the reviewed studies (which may be presented as a summary table), and key findings presented objectively without interpretation.
Discussion Interpretation of findings in the context of the broader literature, comparison with prior similar reviews (if any), practical and theoretical implications, and limitations of the review — including limitations of the literature reviewed and of the review process itself.
Conclusion Written in continuous prose (not bullet points), answering the review's objectives, and including recommendations for future research or practice.
Ethical Statement Review articles generally do not directly involve human or animal subjects and this section may be stated as not applicable — unless the review involves individual participant data (IPD), which requires separate ethical consideration. Where institutional names are mentioned, anonymize the institutional name for blind-review purposes in the Without Author file.
Data Availability Statement Required. State that the data supporting the review (e.g., full search strings, data extraction table, list of included and excluded studies) are provided in the article or its supplementary files, or are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflict of Interest Required, following the same provisions as Section 6.
Funding Statement
(anonymize in Without Author file if needed)		 Declaration of the review's funding source(s) — the name of the funding body and grant number (if any), or an explicit statement that the manuscript received no external funding. Anonymize the institutional name for blind-review purposes — in the Without Author file, the funding body's name is replaced with the notation [Anonymized for double-blind review] if it could identify the authors (e.g., internal funding from the authors' own institution).
Author Contributions
(With Author file only)		 Required using the CRediT taxonomy, following the same provisions as Section 6.
AI Disclosure Statement Required, following the same provisions as Section 6.
Acknowledgements
(With Author file only)		 Optional. Recognition of individuals or institutions that supported the research/review process but do not meet authorship criteria. Anonymize the institutional name for blind-review purposes — in the Without Author file, this entire section is replaced with the notation [Anonymized for double-blind review].
References Follows the provisions under "Number of References" in the guidance table below.

Guidance for Preparing Review Components

The points below are guidance for preparing a review manuscript, not binding requirements. Each type of review has different characteristics, so authors are encouraged to apply whichever points are relevant to the approach they have chosen.

Aspect Guidance
Review Type Declaration State explicitly in the title or abstract whether the manuscript is an SLR, meta-analysis, scoping review, or umbrella review, since each type follows its own reporting conventions.
Protocol Registration Prospective registration on PROSPERO or OSF Registries prior to screening is good practice to demonstrate, though it is not a requirement. If the protocol has already been registered, simply report the registration number and date in the Method section.
Reporting Standard Follow the reporting guideline appropriate to the review type — PRISMA 2020 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (whether examining intervention effects or correlational relationships), MOOSE for meta-analyses of observational studies, or PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews. A completed checklist is very helpful to the review process when attached as a supplementary file.
Study Selection Flow Diagram Shows the stages of identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and final inclusion — helping readers understand the selection process transparently, together with the reasons studies were excluded at each stage.
Search Strategy State the databases used, an example search string for at least one database, the date range covered, language restrictions (if any), and when the search was conducted. The journal does not restrict which or how many databases must be used — this is left to the author's judgment based on the topic.
Eligibility Criteria Best articulated using a framework such as PICOS, or another framework more appropriate to the review type.
Study Selection Process Explain who conducted the screening and how disagreements among reviewers (if any) were resolved. The journal does not specify a required number of reviewers or a particular method of resolving disagreements; authors describe the practice they actually followed.
Data Extraction Describe the tool or form used for extraction, and which variables were extracted from each study.
Quality Appraisal / Risk of Bias May be included where relevant, using a tool appropriate to the design of the studies reviewed — for example RoB 2 for RCTs, ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies, the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for observational studies, or AMSTAR-2 where the object of review is itself a set of reviews. This is not a requirement, but it strengthens the manuscript's credibility when included.
Synthesis Method Explain whether synthesis was conducted narratively, through meta-analysis (fixed- or random-effects model), or a combination of both — including the effect-size metric and heterogeneity statistics (e.g., I²) where a statistical analysis was performed.
Certainty of Evidence (GRADE) Most relevant for reviews that draw conclusions about the effectiveness of an intervention or method. For reviews oriented toward mapping the literature, such as scoping reviews, this assessment is generally unnecessary — authors may consider it according to the context of their review.
PRISMA / MOOSE Checklist Attaching the completed checklist as a supplementary file facilitates the editorial and review process.
Number of Studies Reviewed No minimum number is set by the journal — the appropriate number depends on the availability of literature and the topic under review.
Number of References Still subject to the minimum of 20 references stated in Section 4, counted across the entire reference list. In practice, review manuscripts typically exceed this minimum by a considerable margin.
6B. Manuscript Structure for Conceptual Papers

Definition. A conceptual paper proposes a new or refined conceptual framework, model, or theoretically grounded argument on a physical education issue, without presenting new empirical data. Unlike review articles (Section 6A), it does not require a systematic search procedure; its rigor comes from the strength of its theoretical grounding, the logic of its argument, and the clarity of its conceptual contribution. Conceptual papers are particularly welcome when they translate theory and research evidence into frameworks that physical education teachers, curriculum developers, and policymakers can apply.

General Structure for Conceptual Papers

Section Content
Title Should reflect the central concept or framework proposed. Maximum 20 words, sentence case.
Authors & Affiliations Same requirements as Section 6 for primary research.
Abstract 200–250 words, covering: the problem or gap addressed, purpose of the paper, theoretical approach, the main argument or framework proposed, and its implications. No citations.
Keywords 3–6 keywords/phrases, separated by semicolons.
Introduction The problem, tension, or gap in theory or practice that the paper addresses; why existing concepts are insufficient; the purpose of the paper; and an explicit statement of the intended conceptual contribution.
Theoretical Background The established theories, models, and research evidence on which the argument is built, explained critically rather than summarized source by source. Authors should briefly state how the literature used was identified and why it was selected.
Proposed Framework / Argument The core of the paper: the framework, model, or line of argument, with its components, the relationships between them, and the reasoning that supports each relationship. A figure illustrating the framework is strongly encouraged. Where appropriate, the framework may be expressed as propositions that can be tested in future empirical research.
Discussion and Implications How the framework extends, challenges, or integrates existing work; plausible counterarguments or alternative explanations; practical implications for physical education (e.g., teaching, curriculum, assessment, teacher education, policy); limitations of the framework; and directions for empirical testing.
Conclusion Written in continuous prose (not bullet points), summarizing the conceptual contribution and its significance for physical education. No new arguments not previously discussed.
Ethical Statement Conceptual papers do not involve human or animal subjects; use option (3) from Section 6: "This study did not require ethics committee approval as it did not involve direct intervention with human subjects."
Data Availability Statement Required. State: "No new data were generated or analysed in this study."
Conflict of Interest, Funding Statement, Author Contributions, AI Disclosure Statement, Acknowledgements Same provisions as Section 6, including the anonymization rules for the Without Author file.
References Minimum 20 references (Section 4), APA style. Because the argument rests entirely on existing theory and evidence, conceptual papers typically draw on a substantially larger and more current body of literature, with an emphasis on peer-reviewed journal articles and seminal theoretical works.

Quality Requirements: Conceptual Paper vs. Opinion Piece

To be considered for peer review, a conceptual paper must meet all of the following. Manuscripts that do not will be treated as opinion pieces and returned at the initial screening stage.

Requirement What the Editor Looks For
Explicit Contribution The paper states clearly what is new — a new framework, an integration of previously separate theories, a reconceptualization of an existing construct, or a challenge to a prevailing assumption.
Theoretical Grounding Every key claim is supported by established theory or cited research evidence, not by personal experience or belief alone.
Logical Rigor The argument proceeds in clear, traceable steps; key concepts are defined precisely; and relevant counterarguments are acknowledged and addressed.
Testability or Applicability The framework offers propositions that future empirical research can test, and/or concrete implications that physical education practitioners can apply.
Relevance to Physical Education The problem and contribution are situated in physical education at one or more educational levels, consistent with Section 1.
7. Formatting Requirements
Element Specification
Font Times New Roman throughout
Body text 12pt, 1.15 line spacing, justified
Abstract 10pt, single spacing, justified
Title 14pt, sentence case, bold
Tables 8–12pt, caption above table, numbered consecutively (Table 1, Table 2…)
Figures Minimum 300 dpi, caption below figure, numbered consecutively (Figure 1, Figure 2…). Must be clearly readable.
Line numbering Continuous line numbering required in both submitted files. In MS Word: Layout → Line Numbers → Continuous.
File format Microsoft Word (.docx) only
8. References Format (APA Style)
Use American Psychological Association (APA) style. A reference manager such as Mendeley is strongly recommended.

Journal article:
Atmacasoy, A., & Aksu, M. (2018). Blended learning at pre-service teacher education in Turkey: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2399–2422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9723-5

Book:
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Conference proceeding:
Suroto. (2018). Active learning model in track and field course for pre-service physical education teacher. Proceedings of the 2nd SOSHEC 2018. https://doi.org/10.2991/soshec-18.2018.68

Thesis/Dissertation:
Prakoso, B. B. (2012). Perbandingan efektivitas pembelajaran dikjasorkes [Undergraduate thesis]. Universitas Negeri Surabaya.

Website:
Author, A. (Year, Month Day). Title of page. Website Name. URL
9. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Authors are encouraged to self-assess their manuscript against the 15-item criteria used by reviewers (scale 1–4, maximum score 60):
  1. Originality
  2. Topic relevance and impact on Physical Education
  3. Title
  4. Abstract
  5. Keywords
  6. Introduction
  7. Method
  8. Results
  9. Discussion
  10. Conclusion
  11. Research limitations
  12. Implications and recommendations
  13. References
  14. Data availability and overall data quality
  15. Research and publication ethics compliance
For full descriptions of each criterion, see the Peer Review Process page.

Additional Notes for Review-Based Manuscripts (SLR / Meta-Analysis / Scoping Review)

The 15 criteria above apply in full to review-based manuscripts, in the same manner as to original research articles. For four of these criteria, reviewers additionally take the following into account when the manuscript under evaluation is a systematic literature review, meta-analysis, or scoping review. These points are supplementary considerations, not a narrower or exhaustive substitute for the full criterion:

  • Method — in addition to the usual considerations, reviewers also look at the clarity of the search strategy, eligibility criteria, and the study selection and synthesis process.
  • Results — in addition to the usual considerations, reviewers also look at the completeness of the study selection outcome (e.g., flow diagram) and the clarity of how findings from the included studies were synthesized.
  • Data availability and overall data quality — also extends to the quality and completeness of the data drawn from the studies included in the review.
  • Research and publication ethics compliance — also extends to the transparency of the review process itself, such as honest reporting of excluded studies and the reasons for exclusion.

Additional Notes for Conceptual Papers

The 15 criteria above also apply to conceptual papers. Because conceptual papers do not report empirical data collection, reviewers interpret four criteria as follows:

  • Method — assessed as the quality of the theoretical grounding: the relevance, currency, and critical use of the theories and evidence on which the argument is built (Theoretical Background).
  • Results — assessed as the clarity, internal coherence, and logical support of the proposed framework or argument.
  • Data availability and overall data quality — assessed as the quality and appropriateness of the cited evidence supporting each key claim.
  • Research limitations — assessed as the extent to which the authors acknowledge the boundaries of the framework and address plausible counterarguments.

The scoring rubric (scale 1–4, maximum score 60) remains identical for all manuscript types.

 

For questions regarding manuscript submission, please contact the editorial office at [email protected]. Download the journal template via the Journal Template link in the sidebar.