Reviewer Guidelines

Sport Science – International Scientific Journal of Kinesiology recognizes peer review as an essential component of scholarly publishing and scientific quality assurance. Reviewers play a fundamental role in evaluating the originality, methodological rigor, scientific validity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts. The journal is committed to maintaining a fair, constructive, confidential, and impartial peer review process consistent with internationally recognized principles of publication ethics.

1. Peer Review Model

The journal operates a single-blind peer review system in which reviewers are informed of the authors' identities, while reviewers' identities remain confidential and are not disclosed to authors. Reviewers are expected to provide independent, objective, and evidence-based assessments of manuscripts within their areas of expertise. The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor.

2. Acceptance of Review Invitations

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should assess whether the manuscript falls within their field of expertise, whether they can complete the evaluation within the specified timeframe, and whether any conflicts of interest could compromise their impartiality. Reviewers who are unable to provide a qualified, objective, or timely evaluation should decline the invitation promptly.

3. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

All manuscripts submitted for review are confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, distribute, or discuss unpublished manuscripts or associated information with unauthorized individuals. Manuscript content, research findings, and unpublished data must not be used for personal, academic, or commercial advantage.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding manuscripts under evaluation. Any questions or concerns should be communicated through the journal's editorial system. The use of external artificial intelligence tools to process confidential manuscript content is prohibited unless expressly authorized by the editorial office and appropriate confidentiality and data protection safeguards are established.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any financial, institutional, professional, academic, or personal relationships that could reasonably influence their assessment. Potential conflicts may arise from recent research collaboration, institutional affiliation, competitive interests, supervisory relationships, or other circumstances affecting independence. Reviewers should inform the handling editor of any actual or perceived conflict of interest before proceeding with the evaluation.

5. Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts systematically according to the following scientific and editorial criteria:

Originality and Scientific Contribution: Assess whether the manuscript presents original research, addresses a relevant scientific question, and contributes meaningful knowledge to sport science, kinesiology, or related disciplines.
Relevance to the Journal: Determine whether the research objectives and findings are consistent with the journal's aims and scope.
Title and Abstract: Evaluate whether the title accurately represents the research and whether the abstract clearly summarizes the objectives, methodology, principal findings, and conclusions.
Introduction and Literature Review: Assess the clarity of the research problem, appropriateness of the scientific background, relevance of cited literature, and justification of the study objectives or hypotheses.
Research Design and Methodology: Examine the suitability of the research design, participant selection, sampling procedures, sample size justification where applicable, measurement instruments, experimental protocols, and methods of data collection.
Measurement Validity and Reliability: Assess whether the instruments, testing procedures, and performance measurements are appropriate, sufficiently described, and supported by relevant evidence of validity and reliability.
Statistical Analysis: Evaluate the appropriateness of statistical methods, treatment of variables, reporting of results, consideration of uncertainty, and interpretation of statistical significance and effect sizes where applicable.
Results: Determine whether findings are presented accurately, logically, and consistently, with appropriate use of tables, figures, and supplementary information.
Discussion: Assess whether findings are interpreted critically, compared appropriately with existing literature, and discussed in relation to their theoretical and practical implications.
Conclusions: Determine whether conclusions are supported by the results, appropriately acknowledge study limitations, and avoid unsupported generalizations.
References: Evaluate the relevance, accuracy, and adequacy of references and identify significant omissions or inappropriate citations.
Scientific Presentation: Assess the clarity, organization, academic language, terminology, and overall coherence of the manuscript.

6. Research Ethics and Integrity

Reviewers should assess whether research involving human participants includes appropriate ethical approval and informed consent where required. Studies involving athletes, children, patients, or other potentially vulnerable populations should demonstrate adequate protection of participants' rights, safety, privacy, and confidentiality.

Reviewers should remain attentive to possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other ethical concerns. Suspected misconduct should be reported confidentially to the handling editor, accompanied by relevant evidence where available. Reviewers should not independently investigate allegations or contact the authors' institutions.

7. Preparation of Review Reports

Review reports should be clear, constructive, specific, and supported by scientific reasoning. Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish substantial scientific concerns from minor editorial issues and to provide recommendations that may improve the accuracy, clarity, and scholarly contribution of the manuscript.

Critical comments should focus on the scientific content rather than the authors. Personal remarks, discriminatory language, unsupported criticism, and requests for unnecessary citations are unacceptable. Reviewers should not recommend citations to their own publications unless those references are directly relevant and scientifically justified.

Comments intended for authors should provide sufficient explanation to support meaningful revisions. Confidential comments to the editor may address concerns relating to scientific integrity, editorial suitability, or other matters requiring editorial attention.

8. Reviewer Recommendations

Following evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following editorial outcomes:

Accept Submission: The manuscript meets the journal's scientific and editorial standards and requires no substantive modification.
Minor Revision: The manuscript is scientifically suitable but requires limited clarification, correction, or improvement.
Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial modifications to its methodology, analysis, interpretation, or presentation before further consideration.
Decline Submission: The manuscript contains significant scientific, methodological, ethical, or conceptual deficiencies that prevent its suitability for publication.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute final editorial decisions. The Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor considers the review reports, scientific merit, ethical requirements, and journal policies when determining the outcome.

9. Evaluation of Revised Manuscripts

Reviewers may be invited to reassess revised manuscripts to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the original concerns. During reassessment, reviewers should examine the revised content and the authors' point-by-point responses, focusing on the resolution of substantive issues. Additional requirements should be introduced only when scientifically justified by the revised manuscript.

10. Timeliness and Communication

Reviewers are expected to complete evaluations within the timeframe specified in the review invitation. If unforeseen circumstances prevent timely completion, the reviewer should notify the editorial office promptly. Effective communication helps maintain an efficient editorial process and prevents unnecessary delays in manuscript evaluation.

11. Submission of Review Reports

Reviewers should submit their evaluations through the journal's online editorial management system, Open Journal Systems (OJS). The review report should include constructive comments for the authors, any necessary confidential observations for the editor, and an appropriate editorial recommendation.

Reviewers should ensure that their assessments are complete, professionally expressed, and consistent with the journal's ethical and scientific standards before submitting their reports.

12. Reviewer Recognition and Professional Conduct

The journal acknowledges the valuable contribution of peer reviewers to the advancement of scientific knowledge and the maintenance of publication quality. Reviewers are expected to uphold professional standards of integrity, independence, confidentiality, and scientific objectivity throughout the evaluation process.

Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the single-blind review system and must not publicly disclose their involvement in reviewing a particular manuscript without appropriate authorization.

13. Contact Information

For inquiries concerning review invitations, reviewer responsibilities, evaluation procedures, or technical difficulties with the review system, please contact:

Editorial Office
Sport Science – International Scientific Journal of Kinesiology
Email: editor@sportscience.ba
Website: https://sportscience.ba/