Reviewer Guidelines

Peer Review Form ─ DOWNLOAD
 

Overview of the Review Process

At InnovatioSports Journal, we place great importance on maintaining scientific quality and publishing ethics. The participation of our reviewers in the manuscript evaluation process plays a crucial role in enhancing the scientific standards of our journal. This guide is prepared to provide our reviewers with comprehensive information about the review process.

Steps and Operation of the Manuscript Review Process

  1. Submission of the Manuscript
    • Manuscripts submitted by authors are received by the editorial team for initial screening.
  2. Preliminary Review
    • Editors assess the manuscript for suitability with the journal’s aims and scope. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for compliance with the journal's publication policies and scientific criteria.
  3. Reviewer Assignment
    • Suitable manuscripts are sent to expert reviewers in the relevant field. Reviewers are assigned based on their area of expertise.
  4. Review Process
    • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to specified criteria and prepare a report. Reviewers are expected to provide an impartial and objective assessment.
  5. Editorial Decision
    • Based on the reviewer reports, the editor makes a decision to accept, request revisions, or reject the manuscript.
  6. Author Notification
    • The decision is communicated to the author(s), and if necessary, revisions are requested.

Review Criteria and Principles

Key Criteria to Consider During the Review

  1. Originality
    • Whether the research presents a new and original hypothesis or theory.
    • If it makes a significant contribution to existing knowledge.
    • Whether it employs an original approach or methodology.
    • If it fills gaps in the relevant field.
  2. Methodology
    • The appropriateness and accuracy of the research methods.
    • Whether the experimental design, sample size, and data collection methods are well-planned to answer the research question.
    • The methodological explanations should be detailed enough for reproducibility.
    • The validity and reliability of the tools, tests, and measurement techniques used.
  3. Analysis and Findings
    • The accuracy of data analyses and sufficiency of the findings.
    • The appropriateness and correct application of statistical or analytical methods.
    • Whether the findings are logical and consistent.
    • If the data analysis is transparent and includes sufficient detail.
    • The clarity and comprehensibility of tables, graphs, and other visuals presenting the findings.
  4. Writing and Presentation
    • The clarity, comprehensibility, and scientific tone of the manuscript's language.
    • Compliance with writing rules, free of spelling and grammar errors.
    • Adherence to the journal's format and style guidelines.
    • Logical and consistent organization of headings, subheadings, and sections.
    • The abstract should adequately cover the main findings and contributions of the manuscript.
  5. Use of References
    • Comprehensive review of existing literature by the manuscript.
    • The alignment of used references with the research's theoretical framework and methodology.
    • The currency and reliability of references.
    • Correct citation and ethical use of sources.
    • The completeness and proper formatting of the reference list.

Ethical and Scientific Principles for Reviewers

Reviewers play a crucial role in scientific journals and must fulfill their responsibilities with great care. The ethical principles reviewers follow are essential to maintaining the integrity and reliability of science. Based on the recommendations of the ICMJE, reviewers should adhere to the following ethical guidelines:

  1. Impartiality
    • Reviewers should be free from biases based on the authors' personal, institutional, or geographical origins. Evaluations should focus solely on the scientific content and quality of the manuscript.
    • Reviewers must possess adequate knowledge and expertise related to the subject of the manuscript. If a manuscript falls outside a reviewer's area of expertise, they should inform the editors and refrain from participating in the review process.
    • Reviewers should set aside personal opinions when evaluating a manuscript and provide objective comments based on scientific findings. Critiques should be constructive and aimed at improvement.
  2. Confidentiality
    • Reviewers must not share the content of the manuscript with third parties. The content should remain completely confidential until publication.
    • Reviewers should not know the identities of the authors and must not disclose information that could reveal the authors' identities.
    • Reviewers should securely store all data and documents obtained during the review process and destroy them after the process is complete. They must not use any information from the manuscript in their own work.
    • If reviewers seek assistance from a student or colleague during the review process, they must inform the editors.
  3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest during the review process and withdraw from the review if such conflicts exist. This includes:

  • Financial interests related to the manuscript (e.g., research funding, investment interests), which should be reported to the editors.
  • Professional or personal relationships with the authors, whether current or past (e.g., working at the same institution, collaborating on projects).
  • Competitive relationships or potential competitive conflicts (e.g., working on the same research topic) with the authors, which should be clearly disclosed.
  • Reviewers should be honest and transparent about any conflicts of interest and report them to the editors immediately. If conflicts exist, reviewers should withdraw from evaluating the manuscript.
  1. Constructive Feedback
  • Reviewers should respond to review requests promptly and submit their evaluations within the specified time frame.
  • Review comments should be constructive, honest, and polite.
  1. Scientific Integrity
  • Reviewers must maintain scientific integrity and honesty throughout the review process.
  • Evaluations should consider only the scientific quality, originality, and contribution of the study to significant questions.
  • Reviewers should seek permission from the journal before using technologies such as artificial intelligence for evaluations.
  1. Recognition of Contributions
  • If reviewers receive assistance from a trainee or colleague, they should acknowledge these contributions in the written comments submitted to the editor.
  • Reviewers should continue to uphold the confidentiality obligation and avoid using any software or technology that might compromise this confidentiality.

These ethical guidelines are intended to ensure that reviewers contribute to the scientific process in an ethical and professional manner. For detailed information, please refer to the recommendations of the ICMJE.

Sample Review Reports and Templates

Reviewers can use the following template when preparing their review reports:

  1. Strengths of the Manuscript
  2. Weaknesses of the Manuscript
  3. Suggestions for Improvement
  4. Final Evaluation and Recommendation

Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy

  1. Situations Requiring Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Reviewers must inform the editors of any financial, professional, or personal conflicts of interest related to the manuscript. The following situations are considered conflicts of interest:
      • Working at the same institution
      • Being involved in joint projects
      • Personal or professional rivalry
  2. Ensuring Confidentiality During the Review Process
    • Reviewers must not share manuscripts or their content with third parties.
    • The anonymity of the review process must be maintained, and the identity of the author(s) should not be disclosed.
    • All data and documents used during the review process must be securely stored.

Post-Publication Review and Data Sharing

  • Post-Publication Review

Our journal provides a platform for readers to share comments, questions, or critiques regarding published articles. Authors are expected to respond to this feedback.

  • Data Sharing

Researchers should retain the data sets of their published studies for at least 10 years and make them available upon request.

Conclusion

The contributions of our reviewers are vital in maintaining and enhancing the high standards of InnovatioSports Journal. We appreciate your diligence and dedication to improving the quality of scientific research.

Additional Information and Support

For questions or further information, please contact us at info@isjournal.org.