Reviewer Guideline

The Journal of Sports Science Academy (JOSSA) is a peer-reviewed academic journal employing a double-blind review process. Reviewers play a critical role in upholding the journal's academic standards and scientific rigor. During the evaluation process, impartiality and confidentiality are essential. The following guidelines outline the responsibilities of reviewers and the criteria they should consider during the review process.

1. RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS

1.1. Impartial and Confidential Evaluation:

In line with the double-blind review system, the identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers. Similarly, reviewers must not contact authors directly and should maintain objectivity throughout the process.

All information related to the manuscript and the review process must remain confidential.

1.2. Timely Review:

Reviewers are expected to evaluate the assigned manuscripts within the stipulated time frame and provide their feedback to the journal. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the specified period, they should inform the editor promptly.

1.3. Scientific Suitability and Expertise:

Reviewers should only evaluate manuscripts within their field of expertise. If the manuscript falls outside the reviewer’s area of expertise, they should notify the editor immediately.

1.4. Constructive Criticism and Feedback:

Reviews should aim to enhance the quality of the manuscript. Feedback should be constructive, clear, and well-justified. Personal remarks and unprofessional language should be avoided.

1.5. Identification of Ethical Concerns:

If any ethical issues are identified in the manuscript (e.g., plagiarism, misuse of data, conflicts of interest), the reviewer must report them to the editor.

2. REVIEW CRITERIA

2.1 Scientific Contribution and Originality:

Assess the manuscript’s contribution to the field and its originality. Does the research offer innovative insights or information to the literature?

2.2. Methodology and Data Analysis:

Evaluate the validity and appropriateness of the methods used. Has the data analysis been conducted correctly and adequately?

2.3. Results and Discussion:

Examine whether the results align with the findings and whether the discussion is well-connected to the literature.

2.4. Writing and Presentation:

Assess whether the manuscript is written in a clear, coherent, and consistent manner. Do tables, figures, and other visuals support the study effectively?

2.5. References:

Verify whether the references used are current, appropriate, and sufficient. Are the citations ethically and accurately presented?

2.6. Final Recommendation

Reviewers should complete their evaluations within a period of one month.

Reviewers can state the following five decisions regarding the reviewed manuscript:

  • Accept for Publication
  • Revisions Required (Accept with minor revisions: Revisions are reviewed by the editors)
  • Resubmit for Review (Major revisions: It will be reviewed for the second round)
  • Reject (It is not recommended for publishing)
  • Submit Elsewhere (It is not the scope of the journal: Reject)

The recommendations should aim to enhance the scientific quality of the manuscript by providing authors with concrete suggestions for improvement.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The contributions of reviewers are invaluable to maintaining and improving the academic standards of the Journal of Sports Science Academy. We greatly appreciate your dedication and thoroughness throughout the review process.