For Reviewers

Referee Review Form-İndir
Instractions for Referees-İndir

Dear Reviewers,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable contributions to InnovatioSports Journal. Our journal aims to publish original research, case studies and reviews in the field of sports science and innovation. We value the knowledge and insights you bring to our scholarly community.

The primary goal of our journal is to facilitate the advancement of knowledge and encourage interdisciplinary research. We seek articles that are not only descriptive but also significantly contribute to the existing body of knowledge. Our published papers must provide significant scientific value.

We ask our reviewers to maintain accuracy, efficiency, and timeliness during the peer review process. Conducting your reviews in a timely and meticulous manner enhances the effectiveness of our journal's publication process. In addition, please note that we adhere to the double-blind peer review process. You may prefer to submit your reviews by email or fax. In addition, we may consider reviewing revised versions of articles.

We sincerely appreciate your contributions to the success of our journal. We value your support of our journal and expect that your work will enhance the scientific quality of our journal. We are grateful for your invaluable contributions to the world of science.


Editor-in-Chief, InnovatioSports Journal


Peer Review Process

The peer review process is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing, and it relies on the expertise and objectivity of reviewers like you. Here are some key aspects to consider during the review process:

  1. Objective Evaluation: Manuscript reviewers are expected to assess submissions impartially, avoiding personal opinions or biases.
  2. Confidentiality: Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the review process. Manuscripts should be reviewed without knowing the identity of the authors.
  3. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must promptly disclose any possible conflicts of interest related to the manuscript being reviewed. If any conflicts arise, they must be reported to the journal's editorial staff.
  4. Professionalism and Respect: Constructive criticism is valuable and should always be communicated respectfully and professionally when working with authors.
  5. Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should offer authors with constructive feedback, addressing both strengths and weaknesses in the manuscript.
  6. Language and Writing Review: Evaluate the manuscript for clarity, quality of language, and readability. Identify and suggest improvements for any language issues, grammatical errors, or unclear expressions.
  7. Adherence to Standards: Evaluate the manuscript for compliance with the journal's specific standards. This includes criteria related to language, structure, and methodology.
  8. Reference Verification: Ensure the accuracy and completeness of the manuscript's references. Verify that citations and sources follow the journal's guidelines.
  9. Ethical Considerations: Reviewers should be vigilant for any ethical concerns within the manuscript, such as research misconduct, ethical violations, or research ethics issues.
  10. Transparency in Scoring and Comments: Reviewers should provide clear, transparent comments and ratings for each reviewed manuscript. Authors should be able to understand the rationale behind your assessment.
  11. Reviewer's Statement: After completing the review, reviewers are expected to prepare a reviewer's report. This report should be comprehensive, indicating the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, and should be signed by the reviewer.
  12. Timely Submission: Reviewers are requested to complete their reviews within the time frame specified by the journal. Delays in the review process can impact the timely publication of research.

Conclusion: Your dedication as a reviewer is greatly appreciated. Your commitment to upholding the standards of our journal is invaluable. We thank you for your contributions to the success of InnovatioSports Journal and the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Peer Reviewer Guidelines

Dear Esteemed Reviewers,

Peer review plays a crucial role in the healthy functioning of the academic world and the advancement of science. Your contributions are of vital importance in determining the quality and scientific contribution of our journal. Therefore, it is essential to follow the steps listed below and pay attention to some key points when conducting your article reviews.

  1. Scientific Contribution and Originality:
  • Evaluate the scientific contribution of the article. Is it relevant, and original, and does it provide a new perspective in the field?
  • Conduct a plagiarism check and ensure that proper citations have been made. Highlight any issues related to originality and citations.
  1. Structure and Content:
  • Does the article follow the typical structure of a scientific paper (Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, References)?
  • Is the content logically organized? Do each of the sections link coherently with the preceding and following sections?
  • Are the article's objectives, questions, and hypotheses clearly stated?
  1. Research Methods:
  • Have the authors provided sufficient explanations of their research methods?
  • Are the experimental design, data collection methods, and analysis procedures presented in detail and an understandable manner?
  • Are the research design and methods appropriate for achieving the results?
  1. Results and Discussion:
  • Are the results presented logically, and do they answer the research questions?
  • Does the discussion section align with the results and provide a clear explanation of how it relates to existing knowledge in the field?
  • Is there an emphasis on the implications of the results and potential applications?
  1. Language and Expression:
  • Are there any writing errors, grammar issues, or expressions that are difficult to understand in the article?
  • Does the article use academic language and is it comprehensible?
  1. Figures and Tables:
  • Are the figures and tables sufficiently clear and consistent with the text?
  • Do they aid in the interpretation of the data?
  1. References:
  • Are the references properly cited and formatted by the guidelines?
  • Are there any sources that you believe have been omitted?
  1. Initial Impressions:
  • Consider the initial impression of the article and its level of interest. What aspects initially caught your attention or are missing?
  1. Conflicts of Interest:
  • Clearly state any existing conflicts of interest. Does your review process have any negative impact on the article?
  1. Feedback:
  • Use a positive and constructive tone when conducting your review. Highlight both positive aspects and areas for improvement.
  • Offer specific recommendations as you evaluate the article.
  1. Timeliness:
  • Complete your review within the specified timeframe. If there is a deadline for your review, please strictly adhere to it.

This guide is designed to help you conduct more effective and constructive article reviews. Please review articles carefully, as your opinions can significantly influence the quality and scientific contribution of our journal.

We appreciate your valuable time and effort. Your contributions are highly regarded.

A Reviewer's Report Checklist

Our journal aims to promote scientific excellence in the fields of sports science and innovation and to contribute to the publication of the latest research. Your contribution as esteemed reviewers is invaluable in achieving this goal. Your evaluations form the cornerstone of our commitment to maintaining the quality and impartiality of the journal.

Please consider the following questions when reviewing articles:

  1. Does this article have the potential to advance knowledge in the fields of sports science or innovation?
  2. Does the content of the article align with the scope of our journal?
  3. Is the presentation of the article clear and concise? Are expressions and explanations understandable?
  4. Are experiments or research methods replicable by other researchers? Please report any issues or uncertainties regarding the methodology.
  5. Are visuals (figures, tables) necessary and adequate? What contributions do they make to the scientific narrative?
  6. Have the stated objectives and hypotheses of the article been clearly defined?
  7. Have the statistical analyses been presented appropriately and clearly? Do they align with the results?
  8. Are the results of the article based on the presented data and evidence? Explain any deficiencies or inconsistencies.
  9. Are the references sufficient? Is the reference system used appropriately?
  10. Does the abstract accurately reflect the main points of the study and the conclusions?


During your evaluation, it is essential to consider the questions above and assess the article's compliance with the standards of our journal. Please provide your comments and suggestions to contribute to the journal and assist authors in improving their work.

We appreciate your dedication and contribution to the peer-review process. Your donations to the success of our journal are greatly appreciated.


Editor-in-Chief, InnovatioSports Journal