Peer Review
The journal Research in Sport Medicine and Technology is established upon the principles of peer review and Open Access, in alignment with international publishing standards. To ensure this, the journal employs a double-blind peer review process. In this system, the identity of the authors is kept hidden from the reviewers, and the identity of the reviewers is kept hidden from the authors. This ensures that the review process is conducted solely on scientific merit, free from any bias or personal interest.
Submitted works are assessed for alignment with the journal’s specialized scope and adherence to established technical standards. If the Editor-in-Chief provides final approval, the manuscript proceeds to the publication stage.
Ethical Standards and Compliance
The journal is committed to the highest standards of peer review. In respect to publication ethics, Research in Sport Medicine and Technology adheres to the policies and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows the executive regulations regarding the prevention and combat of scientific misconduct and fraud. In cases of potential misconduct or loss of credibility, the journal follows the disciplinary procedures set by COPE.
The Review Workflow
All submitted manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality of the methodology and the rigor of the research reasoning.
- Initial Screening: Upon submission through the journal management system, the manuscript is first reviewed by the journal office, the specialist, and the Editor-in-Chief (within a maximum of one week). Authors are strongly advised to study the “Instructions for Authors” carefully and prepare their manuscript according to the Persian guidelines before submission.
- Editorial Decision: If the Executive Manager and the Editor-in-Chief approve the initial screening, the manuscript is sent for formal peer review.
- Preliminary Assessment: Manuscripts are first scanned for compliance with the formatting rules stated on the journal’s website and for topical relevance. At this stage, the author will be notified whether the manuscript has been cleared for review and will be requested to pay the review fee.
Detailed Step-by-Step Process
The process of review, acceptance, and publication is illustrated through the following stages:
- Submission: Receipt of the manuscript via the journal website and issuance of a confirmation of receipt.
- Distribution: The manuscript is forwarded to members of the Editorial Board or the Technical Secretary.
- Editorial Board Meeting/Online Review: The board reviews the manuscript, resulting in one of the following:
- a. Rejection: Due to lack of priority/relevance.
- b. Non-compliance: The topic falls outside the journal’s scope.
- c. Low Quality: Rejection accompanied by specific reasons.
- Pre-Review Revisions: The authors may be requested to make initial technical corrections before the formal review process begins. Once these are implemented and approved by the Board, the article proceeds to review.
- Peer Review: The manuscript is sent to at least 2 to 3 reviewers.
- Review Results: Reviewers provide one of three decisions:
- a. Negative (Rejection)
- b. Positive (Acceptance)
- c. Revisions Required
- Editorial Decision-Making: Results are referred back to the Editorial Board, which will decide between:
- a. Rejection: If two or more reviews are negative.
- b. Third Reviewer: If there is a conflict (e.g., one negative and one revision).
- c. Revision Requested: If two reviews suggest improvements.
- Author Revisions: The authors submit their revised manuscript.
- Comparative Review: The revised manuscript is sent back to the reviewers for a comparative assessment, resulting in:
- a. Rejection of Revisions: The article is returned to authors for further work.
- b. Acceptance: If all requested revisions have been successfully implemented.
- c. Final Rejection: If the revisions do not meet the reviewers’ comparative standards.
