Guidelines for Reviewers

1.1. Purpose of Review

The purpose of peer review is to help the journal assess the scientific, methodological, and academic value of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers support the editorial board by offering an independent, constructive, and evidence-based evaluation of the work.

A good review helps editors make an informed decision and helps authors improve the manuscript, whether or not it is ultimately accepted for publication.

1.2. General Expectations

• Review the manuscript objectively and fairly.
• Base all comments on the content of the manuscript, not on assumptions about the author.
• Provide constructive, specific, and academically respectful feedback.
• Indicate both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
• Submit the review within the requested deadline whenever possible.

1.3. Confidentiality

Manuscripts sent for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, discuss, or use the content of the manuscript for personal, professional, or research advantage.

• Do not circulate the manuscript to others without editorial permission.
• Do not use unpublished data, ideas, or findings from the manuscript.
• Do not contact the authors directly.
• Destroy or delete manuscript files after the review process is complete, unless instructed otherwise.

1.4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline an invitation if they have a conflict of interest that may affect their objectivity. This includes personal, institutional, financial, collaborative, or competitive relationships with the authors or the work.

• Recent collaboration with an author
• Institutional affiliation that creates bias
• Direct professional competition
• Financial or personal interest in the outcome

2.1. Before Accepting the Review Invitation

Before agreeing to review, consider whether the manuscript fits your expertise and whether you can complete the review in a reasonable time.

• Accept the review only if the topic falls within your area of competence.
• Ensure that you can complete the report by the deadline.
• Inform the editor immediately if you cannot review the manuscript.

2.2. Reading the Manuscript

Reviewers are encouraged to read the manuscript carefully more than once. The first reading may be used to understand the main purpose, originality, and structure of the paper. Subsequent readings should focus on methodological soundness, interpretation of findings, and the clarity of the presentation.

• Relevance to the aims and scope of JPASE
• Originality and significance of the topic
• Clarity of research question, objectives, or hypotheses
• Appropriateness of design, methods, and analysis
• Accuracy and coherence of results and interpretation
• Quality of writing and overall organization
• Adequacy of literature review and reference use
• Ethical compliance where applicable

2.3. Writing the Reviewer Report

A reviewer report should be structured, specific, and useful for both the editor and the author. Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor separately from comments intended for the author.

1. Brief summary of the manuscript and its contribution
2. General evaluation of strengths
3. Major concerns requiring substantial revision
4. Minor comments on style, clarity, or technical points
5. Final recommendation to the editor

2.4. Recommendation Categories

Recommendation	Meaning
Accept	The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minimal editorial changes.
Minor Revision	The manuscript is promising and publishable after limited corrections.
Major Revision	The manuscript has value but requires substantial revision before it can be reconsidered.
Reject	The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form or does not meet the journal’s scientific standards.

3.1. Scope and Relevance

• Does the manuscript fit within the aims and scope of JPASE?
• Is the topic relevant to physical activity, sport sciences, education, coaching, health, or related disciplines?
• Will the paper be of interest to the journal’s academic readership?

3.2. Originality and Contribution

• Does the paper contribute new knowledge, data, interpretation, or synthesis?
• Does it address a meaningful gap or problem?
• Is the contribution sufficiently important to justify publication?

3.3. Methodological Quality

• Are the design and methods appropriate for the research question?
• Are participants, instruments, procedures, and analytical methods described clearly?
• Are the statistical analyses suitable and correctly interpreted?
• Can the study be understood and, where relevant, replicated?

3.4. Presentation and Structure

• Is the manuscript clearly organized?
• Are the title, abstract, keywords, and headings appropriate?
• Is the writing academically clear and readable?
• Are tables and figures necessary, clear, and correctly used?

3.5. Results and Interpretation

• Are results reported accurately and without unnecessary repetition?
• Are conclusions supported by the evidence presented?
• Are limitations acknowledged where necessary?
• Does the discussion relate the findings to previous literature appropriately?

3.6. References and Scholarship

• Is the literature review sufficient and relevant?
• Are major references in the field included?
• Are citations and references used accurately and appropriately?
• Does the manuscript engage with current scholarship where relevant?

3.7. Ethics and Integrity

• Does the manuscript appear ethically sound?
• Is there an ethics statement where needed?
• Are there any signs of plagiarism, duplication, or questionable research practice?
• Should the editor be alerted confidentially to possible ethical concerns?

Reviewers may wish to consider the following questions when framing their written report:

1. Does the manuscript make a worthwhile academic contribution?
2. Is the content appropriate for publication in JPASE?
3. Is the purpose of the study stated clearly?
4. Are the methods suitable and adequately described?
5. Are the results presented clearly and logically?
6. Are the conclusions justified by the findings?
7. Are the references adequate and relevant?
8. Is the abstract an accurate reflection of the full manuscript?
9. Does the paper require minor technical edits or substantial conceptual revision?
10. What key changes would most improve the manuscript?

5.1. Major vs Minor Comments

Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish clearly between major issues and minor issues.

5.2. Tone and Communication

• Critique the manuscript, not the author.
• Be specific rather than vague.
• Explain the reason for important criticisms.
• Where possible, suggest how a weakness might be improved.
• Maintain a respectful and professional tone throughout the review.

5.3. Comments to the Editor

If necessary, reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor. These may include concerns about ethics, originality, conflict of interest, severe methodological flaws, or other issues that should not be communicated directly to the author in the same form.

• I have no conflict of interest that would prevent an objective review.
• The manuscript falls within my expertise.
• I can complete the review within the requested period.
• I have treated the manuscript as confidential.
• I have evaluated originality and relevance.
• I have assessed methodological quality.
• I have reviewed the clarity of results and conclusions.
• I have commented on references and scholarship.
• I have identified major and minor concerns separately.
• My comments are respectful, clear, and constructive.
• My recommendation is consistent with my written comments.