Peer-Review

Trends in Physical Education and Sport

PEER REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES

  1. General Provisions

1.1. This Procedure establishes the peer review process for scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal Trends in Physical Education and Sport (hereinafter referred to as the “Journal”).

1.2. All manuscripts submitted to the Journal undergo an initial editorial screening and, provided they meet the established requirements, mandatory scientific peer review.

1.3. Peer review is intended to ensure the scientific quality and reliability of published materials, compliance with the principles of academic integrity and publication ethics, maintenance of the Journal’s high scientific standards, and selection of relevant and significant research.

1.4. The Journal uses a double-blind peer review process, in which authors’ identities are not disclosed to reviewers and reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors.

1.5. Peer review is conducted in accordance with the principles of objectivity, independence, impartiality, confidentiality, scientific integrity, absence of conflicts of interest, and compliance with publication ethics.

1.6. Peer review is carried out in accordance with the Journal’s current editorial policies and international principles of publication ethics. The Journal uses double-blind review and engages independent experts to assess manuscripts.

  1. Initial Editorial Screening of Manuscripts

2.1. Upon receipt, each manuscript undergoes preliminary editorial and technical screening.

2.2. The initial screening assesses:

  • whether the manuscript falls within the Journal’s subject area and scientific scope;
  • compliance with the requirements for article structure and formatting;
  • the presence of all required structural elements;
  • compliance with length and file-format requirements;
  • the quality of tables, figures, and bibliographic references;
  • the availability of the required information about the authors and the study;
  • the originality of the manuscript;
  • compliance with academic integrity and publication ethics requirements.

2.3. The Journal’s Managing Editor is responsible for checking compliance with the technical requirements.

2.4. Manuscripts that do not meet the technical requirements may be returned to the authors for correction of the identified deficiencies before being sent for scientific peer review.

2.5. The editorial office checks manuscripts for inappropriate textual borrowing using available originality-checking tools.

2.6. Following the initial screening, the editorial office may decide to:

  • send the manuscript for scientific peer review;
  • return the manuscript to the author for preliminary revision;
  • reject the manuscript without peer review if it falls outside the Journal’s scope, fails to meet the established requirements, or violates the fundamental principles of publication ethics.
  1. Appointment of Reviewers

3.1. Each manuscript accepted for scientific peer review is sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant research area.

3.2. Reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief and/or an authorised member of the Editorial Board, taking into account their scientific specialisation, the relevance of their expertise to the manuscript, their research publications in the relevant field, the absence of conflicts of interest, and their independence from the authors and organisations involved in the research.

3.3. Where necessary, specialists from Kazakhstan and other countries, including independent international experts, may be invited to review manuscripts.

3.4. A reviewer must not have any personal, professional, financial, or other interest that could affect the objectivity of the assessment.

3.5. A reviewer must inform the editorial office of any circumstances that may indicate a conflict of interest and decline to review the manuscript concerned.

  1. Double-Blind Peer Review Procedure

4.1. Peer review is conducted using the double-blind peer review model.

4.2. Reviewers are not provided with information that would identify the author(s) of a manuscript.

4.3. Authors are not provided with the reviewers’ personal details.

4.4. Reviewers assess the scientific content of the manuscript only and must not take into account the author’s personal characteristics, institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, religious or political beliefs, or any other circumstances unrelated to the scientific quality of the research.

4.5. The review process is confidential. A manuscript received for review may not be shared with third parties without the editorial office’s permission.

  1. Criteria for Scientific Peer Review

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the following main criteria:

5.1. Relevance of the research: the importance of the research problem; the relevance of the topic to current developments in physical education and sport; and its fit with the Journal’s scope.

5.2. Scientific novelty: the presence of a new scientific result; originality in formulating the research problem; and the study’s contribution to the relevant field.

5.3. Research aim and objectives: clarity of the aim; consistency of the objectives with the aim; and logical alignment among the aim, objectives, methods, and results.

5.4. Research methodology: justification of the selected methods; their suitability for the research aim and objectives; adequacy of the description of the research procedure; justification of the sample; reproducibility of the study; and appropriateness of the statistical analyses used.

5.5. Research results: reliability and justification of the findings; consistency of the results with the research aim and objectives; correct presentation of statistical data; and appropriate presentation of tables, figures, and other materials.

5.6. Discussion of results: justification of the interpretation of the findings; comparison with results from contemporary studies; soundness of scientific generalisations; and avoidance of unsupported causal claims.

5.7. Conclusions: consistency of the conclusions with the findings and with the research aim and objectives; and absence of unsupported generalisations.

5.8. Theoretical and practical significance: the scientific value of the findings and the potential for their practical application.

5.9. Scientific writing and sources: logical and coherent presentation; quality of academic language; appropriate use of scholarly sources; currency and adequacy of the references; and accurate citation.

5.10. Academic integrity and publication ethics: absence of indications of plagiarism and inappropriate borrowing, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, and improper attribution of authorship; and compliance with publication ethics requirements.

  1. Reviewer’s Report

6.1. Following assessment of the manuscript, the reviewer submits a reasoned written report to the editorial office.

6.2. The report must include an overall assessment of the manuscript; an assessment of the relevance and novelty of the research; an evaluation of the methodology and reliability of the results; an assessment of theoretical and practical significance; the main comments; recommendations for improving the manuscript; and an overall recommendation on its suitability for publication.

6.3. Reviewer comments must be specific, substantiated, and directly related to the scientific content of the manuscript.

  1. Reviewer Recommendations

Following assessment, the reviewer may make one of the following recommendations:

7.1. “Accept for publication” — the manuscript falls within the Journal’s scope, is scientifically relevant and novel, uses a well-justified methodology, and presents reliable results and conclusions consistent with the stated aim.

7.2. “Accept subject to revision” — the manuscript has scientific merit but requires the authors to address comments and make minor or major revisions. In this case, the editorial office sends the reviewer’s comments and recommendations to the author.

7.3. “Reject” — the manuscript has substantial scientific, methodological, ethical, or other shortcomings that prevent publication in the Journal, or it falls outside the Journal’s scope.

  1. Manuscript Revision

8.1. If revision is recommended, the editorial office sends the author the review or a list of reviewer comments without disclosing the reviewer’s identity.

8.2. The author submits the revised manuscript through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) editorial platform.

8.3. Along with the revised manuscript, the author submits a response to the reviewers’ comments specifying which comments have been addressed, what changes have been made, the sections in which changes were made, and which comments have not been addressed and why.

8.4. Depending on the nature of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be assessed by the editorial office, returned to the original reviewer, or sent to another independent reviewer.

8.5. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee its acceptance for publication.

8.6. If the author fails to address substantial reviewer comments or makes only formal changes without correcting the identified deficiencies, the Editorial Board may reject the manuscript.

  1. Re-Review

9.1. Where substantial scientific or methodological revisions are required, the revised manuscript may be sent for a further round of peer review.

9.2. Re-review focuses primarily on the extent to which the previously identified comments have been addressed and on the quality of the revisions.

9.3. If substantial deficiencies remain unresolved, the Editorial Board may decide to reject the manuscript.

9.4. The number of revision and re-review rounds is determined by the editorial office, depending on the nature of the identified deficiencies and the outcome of previous reviews.

  1. Conflicting Reviewer Reports

10.1. If reviewers’ recommendations differ substantially, the editorial office may:

  • appoint an additional independent reviewer;
  • request an additional expert assessment;
  • refer the matter to the Editorial Board.

10.2. If two negative reviews are received, the editorial office sends the author a reasoned rejection.

10.3. One positive and one negative review do not automatically result in acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.

10.4. Where reviewers’ opinions differ substantially, the editorial office decides whether to continue considering the manuscript on the basis of the reports and, where necessary, an additional expert opinion.

  1. Peer Review Timeline

11.1. The recommended period for preparing a review is 4–6 weeks from the date on which the reviewer confirms acceptance of the invitation to review the manuscript.

11.2. Where necessary, the review period may be extended in agreement with the editorial office.

11.3. If a reviewer is unable to submit a report within the specified period, they must notify the editorial office in a timely manner.

11.4. If a review cannot be obtained within the specified period, the editorial office may appoint another reviewer.

  1. Confidentiality and Use of Manuscript Materials

12.1. All materials related to peer review are confidential.

12.2. Reviewers must not share manuscripts with third parties, copy or distribute their contents, use authors’ unpublished data, results, or ideas in their own research, or discuss manuscript contents with persons not authorised by the editorial office.

12.3. Confidentiality must be maintained throughout all stages of peer review and editorial consideration.

  1. Conflicts of Interest

13.1. Reviewers must inform the editorial office of any circumstances that could affect the objectivity of their assessment.

13.2. Conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to, personal relationships with an author; professional or employment relationships; co-authorship of scholarly publications; affiliation with the same institution where this could affect the objectivity of the assessment; financial interests; and any other circumstances that could compromise the independence of the review.

13.3. If a conflict of interest exists, the editorial office appoints another reviewer.

  1. Publication Ethics Violations

14.1. Reviewers must alert the editorial office to possible indications of plagiarism, inappropriate textual borrowing, duplicate publication, republication of previously published results without appropriate acknowledgement, data fabrication or falsification, authorship violations, or other breaches of publication ethics.

14.2. Where necessary, the editorial office conducts an additional investigation using available information resources and originality-checking tools.

14.3. If a serious breach of publication ethics is confirmed, the manuscript may be rejected regardless of the peer review outcome.

14.4. If a publication ethics violation is identified after an article has been published, the editorial office takes appropriate action in accordance with the applicable publication ethics procedures.

  1. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

15.1. Reviewers must conduct their own scientific assessment of the submitted manuscript.

15.2. Reviewers must not upload a manuscript submitted for review, any part of it, unpublished data, or other confidential materials to generative artificial intelligence systems.

15.3. The use of generative artificial intelligence in peer review must not compromise confidentiality, authors’ intellectual property rights, or data protection.

This provision is consistent with the Journal’s stated policy on the use of generative AI.

  1. Use of the OJS Editorial Platform

16.1. All key stages of the editorial and peer review process are recorded in the Open Journal Systems (OJS) editorial platform.

16.2. The OJS platform records manuscript submission; the results of initial editorial screening; reviewer assignment; sending the manuscript for review; receipt of reviews; transmission of comments to authors; submission of revised versions; re-review; editorial correspondence; and the final decision on the manuscript.

16.3. The OJS platform is used to ensure transparency, consistency, and documentation of the editorial process.

  1. Final Decision on a Manuscript

17.1. A reviewer provides a scientific recommendation to the editorial office but does not make the final decision on publication.

17.2. The final publication decision is made by the editorial office and/or the Editorial Board on the basis of:

  • the results of the initial editorial screening;
  • the reviewers’ reports;
  • the results of re-review, if applicable;
  • the manuscript’s compliance with the Journal’s requirements;
  • compliance with publication ethics principles.

17.3. Following consideration, the editorial office may decide to:

  • accept the manuscript for publication;
  • request revisions;
  • send the manuscript for re-review;
  • reject the manuscript.

17.4. A positive review does not guarantee publication of the article.

17.5. The editorial office reserves the right to reject a manuscript if the author fails to address the reviewers’ substantiated comments, does not submit a revised version within the period specified by the editorial office, or fails to correct substantial deficiencies.

18. Communication with Authors

18.1. Authors are informed of the editorial decision through the OJS platform and/or official email correspondence.

18.2. If a manuscript is rejected, the author receives a reasoned notification stating the main grounds for the decision.

18.3. If revisions are requested, the author is provided with the comments and recommendations needed to prepare a revised version.

  1. Final Provisions

19.1. This Procedure enters into force on the date of its approval by the Journal’s Editorial Board.

19.2. Amendments and additions to this Procedure are approved by a decision of the Editorial Board.

19.3. Matters not covered by this Procedure are considered by the Editorial Board in accordance with the Journal’s current policies and international principles of publication ethics.

19.4. This Procedure must be published on the Journal’s official website.