Indonesia Sport Journal (ISJ) is committed to maintaining the quality, originality, integrity, and scientific contribution of published articles. Peer review is an essential part of the editorial process and aims to assist editors in making publication decisions while helping authors improve the clarity, accuracy, and scholarly value of their manuscripts.
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, confidentially, and constructively, in accordance with accepted standards of publication ethics.
Reviewers are expected to:
Provide an objective, independent, and evidence-based assessment of the manuscript.
Evaluate the manuscript's originality, relevance, scientific quality, methodological rigor, clarity, and contribution to sports science and related fields.
Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and provide constructive recommendations for improvement.
Support their comments with clear explanations, relevant evidence, and appropriate scholarly references where necessary.
Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and all information obtained during the review process.
Declare any potential conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality.
Complete the review within the deadline established by the editorial team or inform the editor promptly if an extension is needed.
Refrain from using unpublished data, arguments, or findings from the manuscript for personal research or professional advantage without the authors' permission.
Notify the editor of any suspected research misconduct, plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, or other ethical concerns.
Reviewers should accept an assignment only when the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and they can provide a competent and impartial evaluation.
Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should consider:
Whether the subject matter is consistent with their academic or professional expertise.
Whether they can complete the review within the specified deadline.
Whether any personal, professional, institutional, financial, or collaborative relationship could create a conflict of interest.
If a reviewer believes that they are not qualified to assess the manuscript or cannot complete the review on time, they should inform the editor promptly and, where appropriate, recommend another qualified reviewer.
All manuscripts submitted to ISJ must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, copy, or discuss manuscript content with unauthorized individuals without permission from the editor.
Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding the manuscript unless explicitly authorized by the editorial team. If the journal uses a double-blind peer-review process, reviewers should make reasonable efforts to preserve author anonymity and avoid attempting to identify the authors.
Confidentiality obligations continue after the review has been completed.
Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting or proceeding with a review. Conflicts may include, but are not limited to:
Recent or ongoing collaboration with one or more authors.
Employment at the same institution or a close professional relationship with an author.
Personal relationships or disputes that may affect impartial judgment.
Financial interests or other competing interests related to the research.
Direct competition involving unpublished research or findings.
If a conflict of interest cannot be adequately managed, the reviewer should decline the assignment and notify the editor.
Reviewers should assess the manuscript according to its article type and the standards relevant to its research field. The following criteria may be considered:
a. Title and Abstract
Does the title accurately represent the manuscript?
Does the abstract clearly summarize the research problem, objectives, methods, principal findings, and conclusions?
Are the keywords relevant and useful for indexing and retrieval?
b. Originality and Contribution
Does the manuscript address a relevant issue in sports science, physical education, sports coaching, exercise science, sports management, or another field within the journal's scope?
Does it provide an original contribution or meaningful synthesis of existing knowledge?
Is the research question or review objective clearly stated?
c. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
Is the relevant literature adequately reviewed?
Are the sources appropriate, credible, and sufficiently current?
Is the research gap or rationale clearly established?
Are the theoretical framework and research objectives logically connected?
d. Research Methodology
Is the research design appropriate for the stated objectives?
Are the participants, samples, instruments, procedures, and data collection methods adequately described?
Are the methods of data analysis appropriate and sufficiently explained?
Are reliability, validity, bias, and limitations addressed where relevant?
Are ethical approval and informed consent reported when required?
e. Results and Discussion
Are the results presented clearly and accurately?
Are tables, figures, and statistical analyses appropriate and consistent with the text?
Are the findings interpreted logically and supported by the evidence?
Does the discussion relate the findings to relevant previous studies?
Are alternative explanations and research limitations acknowledged?
f. Conclusions and Implications
Do the conclusions follow from the results?
Are the implications for research, education, coaching, health, or sports practice appropriately explained?
Are recommendations proportionate to the evidence?
g. References and Presentation
Are the references relevant and accurately cited?
Are the citations and reference list consistent with the journal's required style?
Is the manuscript written clearly and organized logically?
Are there concerns about plagiarism, inappropriate citation practices, or other publication ethics issues?
Reviewers should remain alert to potential ethical issues, including plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, fabrication or falsification of data, inappropriate image manipulation, unethical treatment of human or animal participants, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and questionable authorship practices.
Any concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editor with sufficient explanation or supporting evidence. Reviewers should not independently investigate or publicly accuse authors of misconduct.
Reviewers should also assess whether the use of artificial intelligence (AI), when relevant, is appropriately disclosed and consistent with the journal's applicable policies. AI tools must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment, and confidential manuscript content must not be entered into external AI services that are not authorized for confidential material.
A review report should be professional, specific, respectful, and constructive. Reviewers are encouraged to organize their feedback into the following sections:
General assessment: A concise evaluation of the manuscript's significance, originality, and overall quality.
Major comments: Issues that substantially affect the validity, interpretation, completeness, or contribution of the work.
Minor comments: Suggestions concerning clarity, organization, terminology, references, tables, figures, and language.
Confidential comments to the editor: Any sensitive concerns about ethics, conflicts of interest, suspected misconduct, or editorial matters that should not be included in the comments to the authors.
Reviewers should avoid offensive, discriminatory, personal, or unnecessarily harsh language. Criticism must focus on the manuscript and its scholarly content rather than the authors personally.
After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:
Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's standards and requires no substantial changes.
Minor Revision: The manuscript is generally acceptable but requires limited corrections or clarification.
Major Revision: Substantial changes are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards, falls outside its scope, or has fundamental limitations that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.
The reviewer's recommendation is advisory. The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the authorized editor, taking into account the review reports, the journal's standards, and any relevant ethical considerations.
Reviewers should submit their reports within the deadline specified in the review invitation. If they anticipate a delay, they should contact the editor as early as possible.
If a reviewer is unable to complete the assignment, they should notify the editor promptly so that an alternative reviewer can be appointed. Any extension or replacement arrangement is subject to editorial approval.
When invited to review a revised manuscript, reviewers should assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the comments and recommendations from the previous review round.
Reviewers should focus on unresolved major concerns and determine whether the revisions improve the manuscript's quality and scientific reliability. Additional comments should be relevant and necessary, and reviewers should avoid introducing new requirements unrelated to the original concerns unless a significant issue becomes apparent.
Reviewers must uphold the principles of fairness, integrity, confidentiality, transparency, and respect throughout the peer-review process.
Reviewers must not request unnecessary citations to their own work, use the review process to promote personal interests, or attempt to influence editorial decisions for reasons unrelated to scholarly merit.
Any suspected breach of reviewer ethics should be reported to the editorial team for appropriate assessment.
ISJ values the time and expertise contributed by reviewers. The journal may acknowledge reviewers' contributions in accordance with its editorial policies and applicable confidentiality requirements. Reviewer identities will not be disclosed without authorization or a clearly stated journal policy.
Indonesia Sport Journal (ISJ) may periodically review and update these guidelines to reflect developments in scholarly publishing, research integrity, and peer-review practices. Reviewers are expected to follow the current version of the guidelines and any additional instructions provided by the editorial team.
Indonesia Sport Journal (ISJ)
Reviewer Guidelines
TOOLS
Indeks similarity 25% maximum
(exclude quote & bibliography)
Indonesia Sport Jurnal
Program Studi Pendidikan OlahragaProgram Pascasarjana Universitas Negeri Medan
Website : https://jurnal.unimed.ac.id/2012/index.php/jpor
Jurnal Indonesia Sport Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
