| Post date: 2024/08/24 |
The primary purpose of peer review is to provide the editor with the information needed to reach a fair, evidence-based decision that adheres to the journal’s editorial criteria. Review reports should also help authors revise their papers to be accepted for publication. Reports accompanied by a recommendation to reject the paper should explain the significant weaknesses of the research; this will help the authors prepare their manuscript for submission to a different journal.
Confidential comments to the editor are welcome, but they must not contradict the main points in the report for the authors.
Peer reviewers should assess papers exclusively against the journal’s criteria for publication.
The following conventions should be respected:
Confidential comments to the editor are welcome, but they must not contradict the main points in the report for the authors.
Peer reviewers should assess papers exclusively against the journal’s criteria for publication.
The following conventions should be respected:
• Reviewers should review the journal's peer review policy before revealing their role as reviewers.
• Reviews should be conducted objectively.
• Personal criticism of the author and defamatory/libelous remarks are inappropriate.
• Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references.
• Reviewers should declare any potential competing interests.
• Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts with which they believe they have a competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
• Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied and not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their work.
• Any reviewer who wants to pass a peer review invitation on to a colleague must contact the journal in the first instance.
• Reviews should be conducted objectively.
• Personal criticism of the author and defamatory/libelous remarks are inappropriate.
• Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references.
• Reviewers should declare any potential competing interests.
• Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts with which they believe they have a competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
• Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied and not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their work.
• Any reviewer who wants to pass a peer review invitation on to a colleague must contact the journal in the first instance.
Concerns about these points or any aspect of the review process should be raised with the editorial team. We ask reviewers the following types of questions to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:
• Key results: Please summarize what you consider to be the outstanding features of the work.
• Validity: Does the manuscript have flaws that should prohibit its publication? If so, please provide details.
• Originality and significance: Please provide relevant references if the conclusions are not original.
• Data & methodology: Please comment on the validity of the approach, data quality, and presentation quality. Please note that we expect our reviewers to review all data, including extended and supplementary information. Are reporting data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent enough to reproduce the results?
• Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties: All error bars should be defined in the corresponding figure legends; please comment if that’s not true. Please include in your report a specific comment on the appropriateness of any statistical tests and the accuracy of the description of any error bars and probability values. Evaluation checklists can be found here.
• Conclusions: Do you find the conclusions and data interpretation robust, valid, and reliable?
• Inflammatory material: Does the manuscript contain inappropriate or potentially defamatory language?
• Suggested improvements: Please list suggestions that could help strengthen the work in a revision.
• References: Does this manuscript reference previous literature appropriately? If not, what references should be included or excluded? Attempts at reviewer-coerced citation will be noted against your record in our database.
• Clarity and context: Is the abstract transparent and accessible? Are abstract, introduction, and conclusions appropriate?
• Please indicate any particular part of the manuscript, data, or analyses that you feel is outside the scope of your expertise or that you could not assess fully.
• Please address any other specific questions the editor has asked.
• Reviewers should alert the Editor-in-Chief if they wish to make an allegation of publication or research misconduct, e.g., plagiarism or image manipulation, about an article they are reviewing.
• Validity: Does the manuscript have flaws that should prohibit its publication? If so, please provide details.
• Originality and significance: Please provide relevant references if the conclusions are not original.
• Data & methodology: Please comment on the validity of the approach, data quality, and presentation quality. Please note that we expect our reviewers to review all data, including extended and supplementary information. Are reporting data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent enough to reproduce the results?
• Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties: All error bars should be defined in the corresponding figure legends; please comment if that’s not true. Please include in your report a specific comment on the appropriateness of any statistical tests and the accuracy of the description of any error bars and probability values. Evaluation checklists can be found here.
• Conclusions: Do you find the conclusions and data interpretation robust, valid, and reliable?
• Inflammatory material: Does the manuscript contain inappropriate or potentially defamatory language?
• Suggested improvements: Please list suggestions that could help strengthen the work in a revision.
• References: Does this manuscript reference previous literature appropriately? If not, what references should be included or excluded? Attempts at reviewer-coerced citation will be noted against your record in our database.
• Clarity and context: Is the abstract transparent and accessible? Are abstract, introduction, and conclusions appropriate?
• Please indicate any particular part of the manuscript, data, or analyses that you feel is outside the scope of your expertise or that you could not assess fully.
• Please address any other specific questions the editor has asked.
• Reviewers should alert the Editor-in-Chief if they wish to make an allegation of publication or research misconduct, e.g., plagiarism or image manipulation, about an article they are reviewing.
Before you submit your report, please take a moment to read it and put yourself in the place of the authors. How would you feel if you received this report? Would the tone offend you? Is it courteous and professional? Are there unnecessary personal remarks or antagonistic comments about the authors or their competitors? Please note that the editor reserves the right to remove inappropriate language from your report.
Reports do not necessarily need to follow this specific order but should document the peer reviewer’s thought process. Some journals have a set of questions that reviewers will need to address specifically. All statements should be justified and argued in detail, naming facts and citing supporting references, commenting on all aspects relevant to the manuscript that the reviewers feel qualified to comment on. Due to discipline-specific standards, not all of the above aspects will necessarily apply to every paper. Reviewers can contact the editor for guidance about discipline-specific peer-reviewing standards.
The Ann Appl Sport Sci is committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion. The peer reviewer should flag any concerns that may affect this commitment.
Our policy is to remain neutral regarding jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations, and the naming conventions used in maps and affiliations are left to the authors' discretion. Peer reviewers should not, therefore, request authors to make any changes to such unless it is critical to the clarity of the academic content of a manuscript.
The Ann Appl Sport Sci is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication. We believe an efficient editorial process is valuable to our authors and the research community. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the agreed number of days. If reviewers anticipate a delay, we ask them to inform us so we can keep the authors informed and find alternatives where necessary.
View: 808 Time(s) |
Print: 90 Time(s) |
Email: 0 Time(s) |
0 Comment(s)
