Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Sports Medicine and Therapy (JSMT) relies on a rigorous peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality research in sports medicine, rehabilitation, exercise physiology, and related fields. Reviewers play a vital role in evaluating submitted manuscripts, offering constructive feedback, and maintaining scientific integrity while upholding confidentiality and ethical review standards.

Reviewer Guidelines

1. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for critically assessing manuscripts based on their scientific rigor, clinical relevance, originality, and ethical considerations.

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must keep all submitted manuscripts confidential and must not share or discuss them outside the review process.
  • Objective and Constructive Feedback: Reviews should be professional, unbiased, and focused on improving the manuscript.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers should complete their assessments within the specified timeframe and inform the editor if an extension is needed.
  • Ethical Considerations: Reviewers should report any concerns related to plagiarism, research ethics, or conflicts of interest.

2. Criteria for Evaluating Manuscripts

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on the following key criteria:

  • Scientific Rigor: The study should be well-structured, methodologically sound, and supported by appropriate statistical analyses.
  • Clinical Relevance: The research should contribute valuable insights into sports medicine, rehabilitation, or athletic performance.
  • Originality and Innovation: The manuscript should present new findings or novel approaches in sports science.
  • Clarity and Organization: The paper should be logically structured, clearly written, and well-organized.
  • Reference Support: The citations should be relevant, up-to-date, and properly formatted.

3. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must adhere to ethical guidelines to ensure integrity and credibility in the peer review process.

  • Avoiding Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and decline reviews where impartiality may be compromised.
  • Reviewer Anonymity: If the journal follows a double-blind peer review process, reviewers must not reveal their identity to the authors.
  • Reporting Ethical Issues: If reviewers suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, or other ethical concerns, they should notify the editor.

4. Providing Constructive Feedback

Effective peer reviews should be clear, detailed, and aimed at improving the manuscript. Reviewers should:

  • Summarize the key strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
  • Provide specific, actionable feedback for improving study design, data interpretation, and writing clarity.
  • Suggest additional references or alternative approaches if relevant.
  • Ensure that the manuscript adheres to scientific and ethical standards.

5. Reviewer Recognition and Benefits

JSMT values the contributions of its reviewers and acknowledges their efforts through:

  • Recognition in the journal’s annual reviewer acknowledgment section.
  • Opportunities to join the editorial board for outstanding contributions.
  • Certificates of appreciation for completed reviews.

6. Accepting or Declining Review Requests

Reviewers should accept review invitations only if they have expertise in the subject matter and can provide an unbiased evaluation.

  • Accepting a Review: Reviewers should confirm their availability and complete the review within the designated timeframe.
  • Declining a Review: If unable to complete the review, the reviewer should decline promptly and may suggest an alternative expert.

7. Final Recommendation

After reviewing a manuscript, reviewers should recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: The manuscript meets all scientific and ethical standards for publication.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires slight modifications but is fundamentally sound.
  • Major Revisions: Significant issues need to be addressed before reconsideration.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or has fundamental flaws that cannot be resolved.

By participating in the peer review process for JSMT, reviewers agree to uphold the highest standards of confidentiality, professionalism, and ethical integrity. For any questions regarding the review process, reviewers may contact the editorial office.