The SPEED: Sports Performance and Physical Education Development journal is committed to maintaining high academic standards through a rigorous and transparent peer review process. The Reviewer Guide outlines the expectations and responsibilities for reviewers involved in the journal's editorial process. The feedback provided by reviewers plays a crucial role in ensuring the quality and credibility of the articles published in the journal.

1. Responsibilities of Reviewers

As a reviewer for SPEED, you are expected to:

• Evaluate the Manuscript Objectively: Review the manuscript based on its scientific merit, clarity, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope. Your feedback should be fair, unbiased, and constructive.

• Ensure Ethical Standards: Ensure that the manuscript adheres to ethical standards, including proper citation of sources, originality of content, and compliance with ethical guidelines for research involving human subjects or animals.

• Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript and any associated documents as confidential. Do not share or disclose the contents of the manuscript with others, including colleagues or collaborators.

• Provide Constructive Feedback: When providing feedback, focus on offering constructive suggestions for improvement, rather than simply pointing out flaws. Your comments should be clear, respectful, and actionable.

• Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to provide feedback in a timely manner, typically within 2-3 weeks of receiving the manuscript. If for any reason you are unable to meet the deadline, please inform the editor in advance.

• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest. If you are a colleague, mentor, or collaborator of the author(s) or if there are any other professional, financial, or personal relationships that could influence your review, please recuse yourself from reviewing the manuscript.

2. Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript for SPEED, please consider the following aspects:

• Relevance: Does the manuscript align with the scope of the journal? Does it contribute new knowledge to the field of sports science, physical education, sports medicine, or related areas?

• Originality and Innovation: Is the research original and innovative? Does it offer new insights, solutions, or approaches to the field, or does it replicate existing studies without adding significant new value?

• Methodology: Are the research design, methods, and analysis appropriate for the study? Are the methods clearly described so that the study could be replicated?

• Results and Interpretation: Are the results clearly presented and interpreted correctly? Do the authors provide sufficient evidence to support their conclusions?

• Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-written and logically structured? Are there sections (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) that flow coherently and are easy to follow?

• References: Are the references up-to-date and relevant? Are there any critical sources that have been overlooked? Is the referencing style consistent and accurate (APA 7th Edition)?

• Ethical Considerations: Is there any indication of ethical concerns in the research, such as issues related to informed consent, data fabrication, or plagiarism?

3. Review Process

• Initial Assessment: The manuscript will first be evaluated for adherence to the journal’s guidelines. If the manuscript is deemed suitable for review, it will be sent to at least two independent reviewers who have expertise in the relevant field.

• Peer Review: Reviewers will be asked to assess the manuscript based on the evaluation criteria outlined above. Reviewers should provide detailed feedback, including suggestions for improvement, as well as an overall recommendation (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject).

• Decision: After the review is complete, the editor will make the final decision regarding the manuscript’s acceptance or rejection. The author will then receive feedback, including reviewer comments.

4. Types of Review

• Single-Blind Review: Reviewers know the identity of the authors, but authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

• Double-Blind Review: Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. This type of review is intended to ensure impartiality in the evaluation process.

5. Ethics and Integrity

• Plagiarism Detection: Reviewers should be vigilant for potential instances of plagiarism. If you suspect that a manuscript may be plagiarized or contain data fabrication, please bring it to the editor's attention immediately.

• Conflicts of Interest: If you have a conflict of interest (personal, professional, or financial), please decline the review request or disclose the conflict when submitting your review. If in doubt, consult the editor for guidance.

• No Discrimination: Reviewers must not discriminate against authors based on nationality, institution, gender, or any other factor unrelated to the quality of the research.

6. Feedback and Recommendations

When submitting your review, please:

• Provide a Summary: Begin with a summary of the manuscript to show your understanding of the content.

• Detail Strengths and Weaknesses: Clearly outline the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Highlight areas that need improvement or clarification.

• Provide Actionable Suggestions: Offer specific, actionable recommendations that the authors can implement to improve the manuscript.

• Overall Recommendation: Conclude with a recommendation (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject), supported by your comments. Be as specific as possible in your reasoning.

7. Conclusion

The role of a reviewer is crucial in maintaining the integrity and quality of the research published in SPEED. Your feedback not only assists in the decision-making process but also helps authors improve their work. Thank you for your time, effort, and commitment to the peer review process.