Peer review is central to the integrity of scholarly publishing. Reviewers of Journal of Sport and Exercise Studies are expected to provide independent, fair, confidential, timely, and constructive evaluations of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts according to scholarly merit, relevance to the journal scope, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, and contribution to sport and exercise studies. Reviewers must not use the peer review process for personal, professional, financial, institutional, or competitive advantage.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must treat all manuscript files, supplementary materials, data, figures, tables, review invitations, editor communications, and review reports as confidential.

Reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript or review materials with any third party without permission from the editor;
• Discuss the manuscript with colleagues, students, assistants, or external experts without editorial approval;
• Copy, retain, circulate, or upload unpublished manuscript materials outside the journal’s review system;
• Use unpublished information, data, ideas, methods, images, or arguments from the manuscript for personal or professional purposes;
• Disclose the content of the review process to unauthorized parties.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any real, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their ability to provide an impartial assessment. If a conflict of interest exists, reviewers should decline the invitation or inform the handling editor immediately.

Conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to:

• Recent or ongoing collaboration with the author or author group;
• Current or recent affiliation with the same institution as the author;
• Supervisor, student, mentor, close colleague, or personal relationship with the author;
• Direct academic competition or professional dispute;
• Financial, commercial, organizational, or funding-related interest;
• Any circumstance that may reasonably call the reviewer’s independence into question.

Fairness and Objectivity

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively and on the basis of academic merit. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Review comments should focus on the manuscript’s content, method, evidence, argument, interpretation, and presentation.

Reviewers should not allow the following factors to influence their assessment:

• Nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, political view, institutional affiliation, seniority, or identity of the author;
• Personal preference unrelated to scholarly quality;
• Commercial, institutional, ideological, or disciplinary bias;
• Disagreement with the author’s conclusions where the evidence and method are sound.

Constructive Review

Reviewers should provide comments that are clear, specific, respectful, and useful to both editors and authors. A responsible review should identify the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses, explain the basis for the reviewer’s recommendation, and distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions.

Constructive review comments should:

• Explain major concerns clearly and with sufficient detail;
• Provide evidence-based reasoning rather than unsupported judgment;
• Offer realistic and relevant suggestions for improvement;
• Avoid hostile, dismissive, discriminatory, or insulting language;
• Avoid vague comments that do not help authors revise the manuscript.

Timeliness and Responsibility

Reviewers should accept a review invitation only if they are able to complete the review within the requested timeframe. Reviewers are normally asked to submit their review within 3–5 weeks after accepting the invitation.

If a reviewer is unable to complete the review on time, they should notify the Editorial Office or handling editor as early as possible. If a reviewer no longer feels qualified to evaluate the manuscript after reading it, they should inform the editor and may decline to proceed.

Use of Manuscript Content

Reviewers must not use unpublished manuscript content for their own research, teaching, publication, grant applications, commercial activities, public presentations, or other professional purposes before the manuscript is published.

Reviewers must not appropriate ideas, data, methods, arguments, figures, tables, or interpretations obtained through peer review. Any use of manuscript content after publication must follow normal academic citation and licensing practices.

Contact with Authors

Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding a manuscript under review. All communications about the manuscript should be conducted through the journal’s editorial system, handling editor, or Editorial Office.

If reviewers believe that additional information is necessary, they should communicate this request to the editor rather than contacting the authors directly.

Ethical Concerns and Research Integrity

Reviewers should notify the editor confidentially if they identify possible ethical or research integrity concerns. Reviewers should not conduct independent investigations into authors or contact third parties about suspected misconduct.

Ethical concerns may include:

• Plagiarism, duplicate publication, or redundant publication;
• Data fabrication, data falsification, or selective reporting;
• Image manipulation or inappropriate alteration of figures;
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest or funding influence;
• Insufficient ethical approval or unclear informed consent;
• Concerns involving minors, athletes, students, patients, vulnerable groups, or sensitive data;
• Possible breach of privacy, confidentiality, or participant protection;
• Misleading claims, unsupported conclusions, or inappropriate citation practices.

Citation Requests and Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers may suggest additional references when they are genuinely relevant to the manuscript. However, reviewers must not request citations for the purpose of increasing citations to their own work, to the work of colleagues, or to unrelated publications.

Citation suggestions should be academically justified and should support the manuscript’s argument, methodology, context, or interpretation.

Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Reviewers must protect manuscript confidentiality when using digital or automated tools. Reviewers should not upload manuscript files, unpublished data, figures, tables, supplementary materials, or confidential editorial communications to public or third-party artificial intelligence tools where confidentiality, data security, or intellectual property protection cannot be assured.

If reviewers use digital tools to assist with language polishing or organization of their own review comments, they remain fully responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, integrity, and professionalism of the review submitted to the journal.

Reviewing Revised Manuscripts

When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers should assess whether the authors have adequately addressed previous comments and whether the manuscript has improved sufficiently. Reviewers should focus primarily on unresolved issues and the quality of the revision.

Reviewers should avoid introducing entirely new demands at the revision stage unless new concerns are necessary for academic quality, ethical compliance, or publication suitability.

Breach of Reviewer Responsibilities

If a reviewer breaches confidentiality, fails to disclose a conflict of interest, uses manuscript content inappropriately, provides abusive comments, or otherwise violates reviewer responsibilities, the journal may take appropriate action.

Such action may include disregarding the review, removing the reviewer from the reviewer database, notifying relevant editorial leadership, or taking further steps consistent with the journal’s publication ethics policies.

Ethical Responsibility Summary

Reviewers must protect confidentiality and must not use unpublished manuscript content for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and provide fair, objective, respectful, and constructive evaluations.

Reviewers should report ethical concerns to the editor and should not contact authors directly or conduct independent investigations.