Peer review process

Peer Review (Expert Evaluation) in the journal «PHYSICAL CULTURE AND SPORT: SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE» aims to ensure the high scientific-theoretical quality of the publication and to select the most relevant and valuable scientific works. The review process helps provide an objective assessment of the material, ensuring its compliance with scientific, literary, and ethical standards. All reviewers must adhere to the principles of “Publication Ethics” and be objective in their evaluations.

 

Double-Blind Review

The journal employs a double-blind peer review system, meaning that reviewers do not know the authors’ identities, and authors do not know the identities of the reviewers. This ensures the objectivity of the review process.

 

Preliminary Control of Articles

Articles submitted to the editorial office are first checked for compliance with the requirements outlined in the “Terms of Publication” section. Only those articles that pass the initial check and copyright verification are eligible for the review stage. All manuscripts must be formatted according to the “Formatting Guidelines” specified in the journal.

 

Manuscript Review Procedure by the Editorial Board

If a manuscript is submitted by the editor-in-chief, editors, or editorial board members, it follows a separate procedure. An independent responsible editor, who has no conflict of interest with the authors, is appointed for such articles. Additionally, two external reviewers, experts in the same scientific field, are involved in the review process. This guarantees transparency and objectivity in evaluating the material.

 

Initial Expertise

The initial review is carried out by the editor-in-chief or their deputy. If the editor-in-chief has a personal interest in the publication (for example, if they are the author or co-author of the article or have professional or familial ties with the authors), the review is carried out by the deputy editor-in-chief or another editorial board member with no conflict of interest. All submitted materials must align with the journal's scope. If the article meets the requirements, it is sent to a technical editor for registration and removal of author identification information.

Review Process

After the initial review, the anonymous article is sent to the responsible editorial board member who handles the relevant scientific topic, as well as to two external reviewers. External reviewers are Ukrainian and foreign PhDs who specialise in the same scientific field as the article's author(s). A letter is sent to the reviewers on behalf of the editorial board, requesting them to evaluate the article. The letter includes the anonymous article and a review form. Reviewers should not have any affiliation with the author’s institution and must not have a conflict of interest.

Reviewers’ Evaluation

During the review process, reviewers assess the following aspects of the article:

- consistency of the article’s content with the stated topic;

- relevance and novelty of the scientific issue discussed in the article;

- justification of the practical significance of the research;

- value of the article for a broad audience.

Reviewers’ Decision

After the expert evaluation, the reviewers may:

- recommend the article for publication;

- recommend the article for publication after minor revisions;

- recommend the article for publication after significant revisions;

- not recommend the article for publication.

If reviewers recommend rejecting the article or suggest revisions, they must provide a written explanation for their decision. The article must be reviewed by independent experts within two weeks of its receipt. Reviews with regular or electronic signatures are stored by the editorial office for three years from the date of publication.

Revision Process

Authors receive the editorial decision. If revisions are required, the review text is sent to them without identifying the reviewers. Authors make the necessary corrections and send the article for re-review. Reviewers may require additional changes. Revisions do not guarantee the acceptance of the article for publication. If the revisions are deemed unsatisfactory, the article will be rejected.

Final Decision

The editor-in-chief analyses the reviews and makes the final decision about publication, taking into account all recommendations, arguments, and the journal's requirements. The editor-in-chief does not participate in decision-making regarding articles authored by themselves, their family members, or colleagues, nor in materials related to products or services in which they have an interest. All such articles undergo independent review without the involvement of the editor or their team. The final decision on the publication of such articles is made by the deputy editor-in-chief.

The expert evaluation takes between 2 to 4 weeks. The average time to the first decision is 4 to 8 weeks.