Peer Review Process

The Journal of Sport Medicine and Physiotherapy is committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, and scientific excellence of every published article through a rigorous double-blind peer review process. Under this review model, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process to ensure fairness, objectivity, and impartiality.

All manuscripts submitted to Journal of Sport Medicine and Physiotherapy undergo an initial editorial assessment conducted by the Editor-in-Chief. During this stage, manuscripts are evaluated for their relevance to the journal's aims and scope, compliance with the Author Guidelines, similarity screening using plagiarism detection software, and compliance with the journal's policy on the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected without external peer review.

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications and research experience while ensuring the absence of conflicts of interest. They are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, maintain confidentiality, and provide constructive recommendations to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript.

Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision regarding the manuscript. Editorial decisions may include Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Manuscripts requiring revision are normally returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation before a final decision is made.

 

Editorial Workflow

Step 1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system in accordance with the journal's Author Guidelines.

Step 2. Initial Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial assessment of the submitted manuscript to determine whether it is suitable for peer review. The assessment includes:

  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope;
  • Compliance with the Author Guidelines;
  • Similarity screening using plagiarism detection software;
  • Compliance with the journal's policy on the responsible use of AI-assisted technologies.

Manuscripts that do not satisfy these requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected without external review.

Step 3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers under a double-blind peer review system.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and novelty;
  • Scientific contribution;
  • Methodological rigor;
  • Validity of data analysis;
  • Ethical compliance;
  • Clarity and organization of the manuscript;
  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

Step 4. Author Revision

If revisions are required, authors are requested to revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments and submit:

  • A revised manuscript; and
  • A detailed response letter explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

Step 5. Reviewer Re-evaluation

Revised manuscripts are normally returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the reviewers' comments. If necessary, the Editor-in-Chief may assign an additional reviewer to provide further expert assessment.

Step 6. Final Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers' recommendations and the revised manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision.

Possible editorial decisions include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Step 7. Copyediting and Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout editing, proofreading, and final author approval before publication according to the journal's publication schedule.

 

Peer Review Workflow