Research in Sport Medicine and Technology

Peer Review Process

Research in Sports Medicine and Technology Journal uses double-blind system: the manuscript checked by editor-in-chief before send to reviewer or editors. The paper will be peer-reviewed by three experts; one is associate editor and the other two are internal editors and external reviewers. The online peer review system are using in the peer review process. The reviewer and editors need to register in journal system and complete information page.

• Peer Review / Responsibility for the Reviewers/Editors

The editor or reviewers are requested to find out about the originality of the submitted manuscript. Therefore, it is recommended to editors that also see the Author Guidelines and Polices page to see which point’s authors should take into consideration prior to submission of their papers for the publication. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to the research. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.

• Review Guidelines

“Research in Sports Medicine and Technology journal” highly appreciates reviewer support by agreeing to review an article for our journal. Before they consent to evaluate any paper, the reviewers are requested to consider a number of points. First, if the paper is not in reviewer area of research interest and expertise, must inform the editor to refuse the review. Second, if they have no free time to evaluate the paper before the deadline, need to inform the editor. Third, in case of any conflicts of interest, the reviewer’s acknowledgement can be very useful in our final decision. Therefore, typically, journals ask reviewers to complete their reviews within 3-4 weeks.
JSM&T reviewers are requested to evaluate the articles based on a number of evaluative criteria available in the online Review Form, including the clarity, quality, thoroughness, relevance, significance, and soundness of the works. Reviewers are also most welcome to leave comments in the manuscript itself or add their comments in the second section of the Review Form. These comments are very valuable for the professional development of any authors and will unquestionably help them improve their work. The reviewer is requested to make any of the following decisions:

• Accept as it is
• Accept with minor revisions
• Accept with major revisions
• Reject