Peer Review Process
The Journal of Exercise Physiology and Human Performance (JOSPHE) applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, scientific validity, ethical integrity, and relevance of all published articles. Under this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.
The journal is committed to providing a fair, objective, confidential, and timely review process that supports high-quality scholarly publishing.
Initial Editorial Assessment
All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editorial Office and the Editor-in-Chief (or assigned handling editor) to determine:
- Relevance to the journal's aims and scope
- Compliance with the Author Guidelines
- Completeness of submission documents
- Originality and scientific quality
- Ethical compliance
- Suitability for external peer review
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's minimum scientific, editorial, or ethical standards may be rejected without external review (desk rejection).
Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.
Reviewers are selected based on their:
- Academic qualifications
- Research expertise
- Publication record
- Reviewing experience
- Absence of conflicts of interest
If necessary, the Editor may invite additional reviewers to obtain further expert opinions or resolve conflicting recommendations.
Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:
- Originality and novelty of the study
- Scientific significance and contribution to the field
- Methodological rigor and validity
- Quality of data analysis and interpretation
- Clarity of writing, organization, and presentation
- Adequacy and relevance of references
- Validity of conclusions
- Ethical compliance and research integrity
- Relevance to the journal's aims and scope
Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments that assist both the editors and authors in improving the manuscript.
Editorial Decision
Based on reviewers' recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor will make one of the following decisions:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
Authors receiving revision requests must submit:
- A revised manuscript; and
- A detailed point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.
Final Decision
The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief after careful consideration of:
- Reviewers' recommendations
- Authors' revisions
- Scientific merit
- Methodological quality
- Ethical compliance
- Overall suitability for publication
The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted to JOSPHE are treated as confidential documents.
Editors and reviewers must not:
- Disclose manuscript contents to unauthorized individuals;
- Use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage; or
- Communicate directly with authors outside the official editorial system.
Confidentiality is maintained throughout the review and publication process.
Conflict of Interest
Editors and reviewers must declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a manuscript for review.
Individuals with conflicts of interest must decline the invitation to review or handle the manuscript.
Publication Ethics
The peer-review process is conducted in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
JOSPHE is committed to ensuring that all editorial decisions are made fairly, objectively, independently, and without discrimination based on authors' nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, or other personal characteristics.
