The SPEED: Sports Performance and Physical Education Development journal adheres to a rigorous and transparent peer review process to maintain the quality, integrity, and academic standard of the articles we publish. The peer review process is essential in ensuring that the research we publish is reliable, scientifically sound, and adds meaningful knowledge to the field of sports performance and physical education development.

1. Overview of the Peer Review Process

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team to determine its suitability for the journal’s scope and adherence to submission guidelines. If the manuscript meets these basic criteria, it will be sent to at least two independent reviewers who have expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. This peer review process is designed to provide constructive feedback to authors, identify potential flaws or areas for improvement, and assess the manuscript’s overall quality.

The journal uses a double-blind peer review process, meaning both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process to ensure impartiality.

2. Types of Peer Review

• Double-Blind Review: In this process, both the authors and reviewers are anonymized. The reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. This is to reduce bias and ensure that the evaluation is based solely on the quality of the manuscript.

• Single-Blind Review: In this process, the reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. This is often used in certain cases depending on the nature of the manuscript or the reviewer.

3. Manuscript Review Phases

The review process generally follows these key stages:

• Step 1: Initial Assessment

  • After submission, the editorial team performs an initial screening of the manuscript. This includes checking for plagiarism, adherence to submission guidelines, and relevance to the journal’s scope. If the manuscript passes this initial assessment, it is forwarded to reviewers.

• Step 2: Selection of Reviewers

  • The editor assigns the manuscript to reviewers based on their expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected from a pool of qualified individuals with experience in sports performance, physical education, or related disciplines.

• Step 3: Peer Review

  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on several criteria, including originality, scientific rigor, methodology, clarity, and relevance. Reviewers are asked to provide a detailed and constructive evaluation, offering suggestions for improvement, pointing out potential weaknesses, and assessing whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope.

• Step 4: Reviewer Decision

  • Reviewers submit their feedback, along with a recommendation for the manuscript (i.e., accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject). The editorial team uses these reviews to make a final decision on the manuscript.

• Step 5: Author Revisions

  • If the manuscript requires revisions, the authors will be notified of the reviewer feedback and be given a specified period to revise the manuscript. Authors must respond to reviewers' comments, make necessary revisions, and provide a detailed response to each point raised by the reviewers.

• Step 6: Final Decision

  • After receiving the revised manuscript, the editor evaluates the revisions and makes a final decision. If the manuscript is accepted, it moves to the publication stage. If the revisions are insufficient, it may be sent back for further revisions or rejected.

4. Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the high standards of the journal. To ensure a fair, unbiased, and constructive review process, reviewers are expected to:

• Provide Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should offer constructive criticism aimed at improving the manuscript. Suggestions should be specific, clear, and actionable.

• Evaluate Based on Merit: Reviewers must evaluate the manuscript based on the quality of the research, not personal preferences, biases, or conflicts of interest. Assessments should focus on the scientific merit, clarity, novelty, and relevance of the study.

• Ensure Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents and should not disclose or discuss the contents of the manuscript with anyone outside the review process.

• Disclose Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest they may have that could influence their review. If a reviewer has a close professional or personal relationship with the authors, they should recuse themselves from reviewing the manuscript.

• Timeliness: Reviewers should provide their feedback within the specified time frame. If they are unable to review within the allotted time, they should notify the editorial team and decline the review.

5. Criteria for Review

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

• Relevance to the Journal’s Scope: Does the manuscript address topics within the field of sports performance, physical education, or related disciplines? Is it a good fit for the journal’s target audience?

• Originality: Is the research original and novel? Does it add new knowledge or insights to the field, or does it replicate existing studies without significant new contributions?

• Methodology: Are the research methods clearly described and appropriate for the study? Are the methods rigorous and reproducible? Is the sample size sufficient and suitable for the study’s objectives?

• Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-organized and easy to understand? Are the research questions, objectives, methods, and findings clearly presented? Are the sections of the paper (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) logically structured?

• Results and Interpretation: Are the results clearly presented and interpreted accurately? Are the conclusions supported by the data and analysis? Do the authors address the limitations of their study?

• References and Citations: Are the references up to date, relevant, and accurately cited? Do the authors reference key works in the field and ensure proper attribution to previous research?

• Ethical Considerations: Are ethical standards in research adhered to, such as obtaining informed consent and appropriate ethical approvals, particularly in research involving human or animal subjects?

6. Ethical Considerations in Peer Review

SPEED ensures a transparent, ethical, and fair peer review process. If reviewers suspect any ethical violations, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical research practices, they should report these concerns immediately to the editorial team. The journal is committed to addressing any potential ethical misconduct thoroughly and promptly.

7. Confidentiality

All participants in the peer review process — authors, reviewers, and editors — are expected to respect confidentiality. Manuscripts should not be discussed or shared with others outside the review process. Reviewers must not use information from the manuscript for personal gain or advantage.

8. Conclusion

The peer review process is a cornerstone of academic publishing, and the SPEED: Sports Performance and Physical Education Development journal is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, and ethical process. By providing rigorous feedback and maintaining confidentiality, reviewers ensure that only the highest-quality research is published, advancing knowledge in the fields of sports performance and physical education.