Responsibilities and Ethical Principles of Reviewers

Responsibilities and Ethical Principles of Reviewers

The Journal of Sports Science Academy (JOSSA) is committed to maintaining high standards of scientific integrity, academic rigor, fairness, confidentiality, and ethical conduct throughout the peer-review process.

Reviewers play a fundamental role in safeguarding the scientific quality and credibility of the journal. Their evaluations assist Editors in making informed editorial decisions and provide authors with constructive feedback that may improve the scientific quality, methodological rigor, clarity, and presentation of their work.

All reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations independently, objectively, confidentially, respectfully, and in accordance with the principles of research and publication ethics.

1. Impartiality and Objectivity

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively and solely on their scientific and scholarly merits.

Evaluation must not be influenced by considerations unrelated to the scientific content of the manuscript, including the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, personal characteristics, academic status, commercial interests, or other irrelevant factors.

Reviewer comments should be based on scientific reasoning, evidence, methodological considerations, and the scholarly content of the manuscript.

Personal preferences or disagreements that are not scientifically relevant should not influence the review recommendation.

2. Double-Anonymous Peer Review and Anonymity

JOSSA operates a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process.

Reviewers must not attempt to discover the identity of the authors.

If a reviewer becomes aware of or reasonably suspects an author's identity and this creates an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest, the reviewer must inform the Editor promptly.

Reviewers must not reveal their identity to the authors unless explicitly authorized by the journal.

3. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for peer review, together with associated files, data, figures, tables, supplementary materials, editorial correspondence, and reviewer information, must be treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not:

  • share or discuss the manuscript with unauthorized individuals;
  • reproduce, distribute, store, or transmit confidential manuscript material for purposes unrelated to the review;
  • disclose unpublished findings, arguments, methods, data, or other information obtained through peer review;
  • contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript; or
  • disclose the content, recommendation, or outcome of the review process.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the review has been completed and regardless of whether the manuscript is ultimately accepted or rejected.

4. Protection of Unpublished Information and Intellectual Property

Reviewers must not use unpublished information, ideas, hypotheses, methods, analyses, data, results, or other intellectual content obtained through peer review for their own research, publications, professional advantage, financial benefit, or the advantage of another person or organization.

Reviewers must not use confidential information obtained through peer review to disadvantage, compete with, discredit, or otherwise harm the authors.

Any unpublished material contained in a submitted manuscript remains protected by the principles of confidentiality and research integrity.

5. Scientific Expertise and Competence

Reviewers should accept review invitations only when they have sufficient expertise to evaluate the principal scientific and methodological aspects of the manuscript competently.

If a reviewer determines that:

  • the manuscript is substantially outside their area of expertise;
  • specialized statistical, methodological, technical, or interdisciplinary expertise is required beyond their competence; or
  • they cannot provide a scientifically reliable evaluation,

they should inform the Editor promptly.

Reviewers should not provide speculative criticism on matters outside their expertise.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, the independence and impartiality of their evaluation.

Potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to:

  • recent or ongoing collaboration with an author;
  • close personal or professional relationships;
  • supervisory, mentoring, or academic dependency relationships;
  • employment at the same institution or closely connected institutions;
  • direct academic competition;
  • financial or commercial interests;
  • involvement in closely related research;
  • personal disputes or relationships that could influence judgment; or
  • any other circumstance that may compromise impartiality.

A conflict of interest does not always automatically disqualify a reviewer; however, it must be disclosed to the Editor, who will determine whether the review should proceed.

If a conflict becomes apparent after the reviewer has accepted the assignment, the reviewer must notify the Editor immediately.

7. Timeliness and Commitment

Reviewers should accept an invitation only if they are able to provide a careful and scientifically competent review within the timeframe specified by JOSSA.

If a reviewer anticipates a delay or becomes unable to complete the review, they must inform the editorial office as soon as possible.

Reviewers should not delay the review process unnecessarily.

The need for timely review must not, however, compromise the depth, quality, or scientific rigor of the evaluation.

8. Constructive, Respectful, and Evidence-Based Feedback

Reviewer reports should be clear, specific, constructive, evidence-based, professional, and respectful.

Reviewers should:

  • clearly identify major scientific or methodological concerns;
  • distinguish major concerns from minor corrections;
  • explain the scientific reasoning behind substantive criticism;
  • provide actionable recommendations where possible;
  • acknowledge strengths where appropriate; and
  • focus criticism on the manuscript rather than the authors.

Personal attacks, sarcastic remarks, hostile language, discriminatory statements, humiliating comments, defamatory statements, or unnecessarily aggressive criticism are unacceptable.

The purpose of peer review is to support rigorous editorial decision-making and, where possible, to help authors improve their work.

9. Ethical and Research-Integrity Concerns

Reviewers should remain alert to potential research or publication ethics concerns, including but not limited to:

  • plagiarism or substantial unattributed textual overlap;
  • duplicate or redundant publication;
  • data fabrication or falsification;
  • inappropriate manipulation of images or results;
  • selective or misleading reporting;
  • inadequate ethical approval;
  • lack of appropriate informed consent;
  • participant privacy or confidentiality concerns;
  • inappropriate authorship practices;
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • citation manipulation;
  • unethical research procedures;
  • fabricated or unreliable references; and
  • other potential breaches of research or publication integrity.

Any such concern should be reported confidentially to the Editor with as much relevant information as reasonably possible.

Reviewers must not independently investigate allegations of misconduct, contact authors' institutions, or directly confront the authors.

10. Ethical Approval, Consent, and Participant Protection

Where applicable, reviewers should assess whether the manuscript provides appropriate information concerning:

  • ethics committee or institutional review board approval;
  • approval number and date where required;
  • informed consent;
  • consent for publication;
  • protection of participant privacy and confidentiality;
  • clinical trial or study registration; and
  • compliance with applicable ethical standards.

If ethical information appears incomplete, inconsistent, inappropriate, or absent where it would normally be required, the reviewer should raise the concern with the Editor.

11. Citation Ethics

Reviewers must not manipulate citations or use the peer-review process to increase citations to their own work, the work of associates, JOSSA, or any particular journal.

A reviewer may recommend additional references only when they are genuinely relevant and scientifically necessary for improving the manuscript.

Reviewers should not require authors to cite particular publications merely to increase citation counts or for personal, institutional, or journal-level benefit.

Suspected citation manipulation should be reported to the Editor.

12. Use of Artificial Intelligence and External Tools

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies during peer review must comply with JOSSA's Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-Assisted Tools.

Reviewers must not upload, copy, paste, transmit, or otherwise provide confidential manuscript content—including text, abstracts, figures, tables, data, supplementary materials, or reviewer correspondence—to publicly accessible generative AI systems or external AI services for which confidentiality, data protection, and data-retention practices cannot be assured.

AI must not replace the reviewer's own scientific judgment or independently generate the substantive evaluation or recommendation.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, confidentiality, integrity, and scientific validity of their reports.

13. Involving Other Individuals in the Review

A reviewer must not involve another individual—including a colleague, student, trainee, postdoctoral researcher, or other researcher—in evaluating a manuscript without prior permission from the Editor.

If permission is granted, all individuals who make a substantive contribution to the review must comply with the same confidentiality, conflict-of-interest, ethical, and professional obligations as the invited reviewer.

Their contribution should be disclosed to the journal so that appropriate records and recognition can be maintained.

The invited reviewer remains responsible for ensuring that the review process is conducted appropriately.

14. Independence of Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewer recommendations must reflect the reviewer's independent scientific judgment.

Reviewers should not:

  • coordinate recommendations with other individuals without editorial authorization;
  • allow personal or institutional interests to influence their recommendation;
  • recommend rejection or acceptance for reasons unrelated to scientific and ethical evaluation; or
  • attempt to influence editorial decisions through inappropriate pressure.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory.

The final editorial decision belongs to the Editor, who considers the reviewer reports together with the scientific merits of the manuscript, the authors' responses, ethical requirements, and JOSSA's editorial policies.

15. Reviewer Conduct After Completing the Review

After submitting a review, reviewers must continue to maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript and editorial process.

They must not publicly disclose:

  • that they reviewed a particular unpublished manuscript;
  • the content of their review;
  • confidential editorial correspondence; or
  • the editorial outcome before that information becomes legitimately public.

If reviewers identify an important error, undisclosed conflict of interest, or ethical concern after submitting their report, they should notify the Editor promptly.

16. Breaches of Reviewer Ethics

JOSSA may take appropriate action where a reviewer is reasonably suspected of:

  • breaching manuscript confidentiality;
  • misusing unpublished information;
  • failing to disclose a relevant conflict of interest;
  • manipulating citations;
  • providing fraudulent or fabricated reviews;
  • delegating a review without authorization;
  • engaging in discriminatory, abusive, or unethical conduct;
  • misusing AI or other external tools;
  • attempting to improperly influence editorial decisions; or
  • otherwise violating the journal's peer-review or publication ethics policies.

Depending on the nature and severity of the matter, actions may include terminating the review assignment, disregarding the review report, removing the individual from the reviewer pool, restricting future reviewer invitations, or taking other appropriate editorial action.

17. Acceptance of Ethical Responsibilities

By accepting an invitation to review for JOSSA, reviewers confirm that they:

  • possess appropriate expertise to evaluate the manuscript;
  • will conduct the review independently and objectively;
  • have disclosed relevant conflicts of interest;
  • will maintain confidentiality;
  • will not misuse unpublished information;
  • will provide constructive and scientifically justified feedback;
  • will comply with JOSSA's peer-review, publication ethics, and AI policies; and
  • will inform the Editor promptly of any matter that may compromise the integrity of the review process.

Reviewers are expected to act in a manner consistent with the principles of responsible scholarly peer review and the ethical standards adopted by JOSSA.

Policy Last Updated: September 2026