The review criteria are intended to support fair, consistent, and constructive evaluation of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to assess each manuscript according to its scholarly quality, relevance to the journal scope, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, clarity of presentation, and contribution to sport and exercise studies.

The criteria below apply to most manuscript types. Specific criteria may be adapted depending on whether the submission is an original research article, review article, systematic review, theoretical article, case study, methodological note, commentary, or book review.

Core Review Criteria

Relevance and Scope

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of the journal. A suitable manuscript should have a clear connection to one or more areas of sport and exercise studies, including but not limited to sport science, exercise science, physical activity, health promotion, physical education, sport psychology, sport management, sport policy, sport sociology, body culture, or related interdisciplinary areas.

• Does the manuscript clearly fit the journal’s academic scope?
• Does it address a meaningful issue in sport, exercise, physical activity, health, education, performance, or society?
• Is the topic relevant to researchers, educators, practitioners, policymakers, or communities in the field?
• Does the manuscript avoid being merely promotional, descriptive, or unrelated to scholarly debate?

Originality and Scholarly Contribution

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript makes a clear and defensible contribution. The contribution may be empirical, theoretical, methodological, practical, educational, policy-oriented, or interdisciplinary.

• Does the manuscript address a clearly defined research problem or scholarly question?
• Does it provide new evidence, analysis, interpretation, framework, method, or synthesis?
• Does it explain how it extends, revises, or challenges existing scholarship?
• Is the contribution substantial enough for publication in an academic journal?

Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript is adequately grounded in relevant literature. The manuscript should engage with appropriate academic sources and position its argument or findings within the field.

• Is the literature review current, relevant, and sufficiently developed?
• Are key concepts and theoretical assumptions clearly defined?
• Does the manuscript identify a meaningful research gap or unresolved issue?
• Are the cited sources appropriate, balanced, and academically credible?
• Does the manuscript avoid unsupported claims or superficial citation practices?

Methodological Quality

For empirical manuscripts, reviewers should examine whether the research design and methods are appropriate for the research question. Methods should be described with sufficient transparency to allow readers to evaluate the credibility, validity, reliability, trustworthiness, or transferability of the findings.

• Is the research design appropriate for the stated purpose?
• Are participants, sample, data sources, or case selection clearly described?
• Are instruments, measures, interview protocols, observation procedures, or data sources suitable and clearly explained?
• Are data collection and analysis procedures transparent and appropriate?
• Are statistical analyses, qualitative analyses, mixed-methods procedures, or other analytical techniques correctly applied?
• Are limitations acknowledged honestly and adequately?

Ethics and Research Integrity

Reviewers should identify any ethical concerns that may affect the suitability of the manuscript. This is especially important for research involving human participants, athletes, students, minors, patients, vulnerable groups, interventions, identifiable images, sensitive data, or institutional records.

• Does the manuscript state whether ethical approval was obtained where required?
• Does the manuscript describe informed consent procedures where applicable?
• Are participant privacy, confidentiality, and data protection adequately addressed?
• Are there concerns about plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, or image manipulation?
• Are conflicts of interest, funding sources, and data availability disclosed where applicable?

Results, Evidence, and Interpretation

Reviewers should assess whether the results or arguments are clearly presented and adequately supported. Conclusions should follow from the evidence and should not exceed what the data, analysis, or theoretical discussion can justify.

• Are the findings presented clearly and logically?
• Are tables, figures, and supplementary materials accurate and useful?
• Are interpretations supported by the evidence?
• Does the discussion connect findings to prior research and broader debates?
• Are practical, theoretical, educational, health, or policy implications stated appropriately?
• Are limitations and future research directions addressed in a balanced manner?

Writing, Organization, and Presentation

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript is organized in a clear and reader-friendly manner. Language should be sufficiently clear for peer review and scholarly communication.

• Is the manuscript logically structured?
• Are the title, abstract, and keywords accurate and informative?
• Are headings and sections used effectively?
• Is the writing clear, precise, and academically appropriate?
• Are tables and figures properly labelled, cited, and explained?
• Does the manuscript require language editing before publication?

Criteria for Review Articles and Systematic Reviews

For Review Articles, Systematic Reviews, and Meta-analyses, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript provides a rigorous and useful synthesis of existing knowledge.

• Is the review question or purpose clearly defined?
• Is the scope of the review appropriate and justified?
• Are search strategies, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and screening procedures clearly reported where applicable?
• Are methods of synthesis transparent and appropriate?
• Does the review identify patterns, gaps, contradictions, and future directions?
• For meta-analyses, are statistical procedures, effect sizes, heterogeneity, and bias assessment adequately reported?

Criteria for Theoretical and Conceptual Articles

For theoretical or conceptual manuscripts, reviewers should assess the clarity, coherence, originality, and scholarly value of the argument.

• Is the central argument clearly stated?
• Are key concepts defined and used consistently?
• Does the manuscript engage seriously with relevant theoretical literature?
• Does it offer a meaningful conceptual contribution?
• Is the argument coherent, balanced, and well supported?
• Does the article clarify implications for future research or practice?

Criteria for Case Studies and Methodological Notes

For Case Studies and Methodological Notes, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript goes beyond description and offers analytical, methodological, practical, or theoretical value.

• Is the case, method, tool, procedure, or analytical problem clearly introduced?
• Is the significance of the case or methodological issue adequately explained?
• Are evidence, data sources, or examples clearly described?
• Does the manuscript provide insight that may be useful beyond the specific case?
• Are limitations and transferability discussed appropriately?

Reviewer Recommendation Categories

Constructive Review Expectations

Reviewers are expected to provide comments that are professional, specific, evidence-based, and useful for both editors and authors. A constructive review should explain the reasons behind the recommendation and distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions.

• Comments should be respectful and focused on the manuscript, not the authors.
• Major concerns should be clearly prioritized.
• Methodological or ethical concerns should be explained with sufficient detail.
• Suggestions should be realistic and relevant to the manuscript’s purpose.
• Reviewers should avoid requesting unnecessary citations to their own work.

Review Criteria Summary

Manuscripts are evaluated according to relevance, originality, scholarly contribution, methodological quality, ethical compliance, clarity, evidence, and contribution to sport and exercise studies.

Final editorial decisions are made by the editor based on reviewer reports, editorial judgment, journal scope, publication ethics, and the overall quality of the manuscript.