Publication ethics
Reviewer Guidelines
This Publication uses double anonymized peer-review process:
- reviewers identity is not made visible to author(s), author(s) identity is not made visible to reviewers, reviewers and author(s) identity is only visible to (decision-making) editor;
- reviewers interact with Editor;
- no information about the review process or editorial decision process is published.
Such a procedure allows to ensure the objectivity of the review process, subject to proper confidentiality and the absence of a conflict of interest.
Two reviewers are assigned to each submission (please note that neither reviewer may recommend co-reviewer). Assigned reviewers will conduct their own reviews (regarding the arcticle and existing supplementary materials) independent of one another following steps established in the review template.
How to become a Reviewer
Researchers/Scientists with significant experience and expertise in subject area covered by the Publication, who are interested in completing such reviews may become Reviewers for this Publication. For that they need to register on Publication website under “Reviewer” role and provide detailed description of their experience.
Selection for review process is done by editor based on following considerations:
- Necessary experience in evaluating research quality;
- Independence from Author(s) of an article;
- Free of conflict of interest (do not work for the same organization, do not have publications with the author(s) in the last 5 years, do not have any financial or professional interests or gains as result of this work, and are not a family member).
In addition, priority is given to those reviewers who meet following criteria:
- Quality of prior reviews;
- Being active in the research community;
- Number of publications in a subject area.
If you are selected to become a reviewer, editorial office will send you an offer letter. Please respond within 3 working days with your acceptance, otherwise your candidacy will be rejected. Before you accept a request to review, please ensure you meet all requirements listed above and have considered the time commitment necessary to complete quality review. By accepting offer to review, you will agree to write and submit quality review within editorial deadline (up to 14 days).
We appreciate prompt communication or advance notice in case reviewer is having difficulties meeting 14-day deadline.
Reviewer Responsibilities
- Provide objective and constructive feedback in allotted time (up to 14 days);
- Provide feedback free of any personal biases;
- Have relevant experience to assess quality of the research;
- Avoid any conflict of interest from Author or Editor or otherwise notify editorial office;
- Comply with ethical norms and guidelines of the Publication and notify editorial office of any issues;
- Maintain information confidentiality and not disclose any information without permission from Chief Editor;
- Do not use any of the reviewed materials that has not yet been published for any personal gain;
- Make themselves available in case of questions on completed reviews and need for clarification;
- Be professional and communicate well.
The editorial board of the scientific journal «PHYSICAL CULTURE AND SPORT: SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE» is on the view that ethical aspects of publication are an important part of the editorial work and of the reviewing process. Prevention of inappropriate activities, such as dissimulation, plagiarism, has been a responsibility of any author, editor, reviewer, publisher and institution that take part in a publication process.
The editorial board of the scientific journal «PHYSICAL CULTURE AND SPORT: SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE» follows the Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice based on COPE's Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (має бути посилання ) and Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers to ensure ethics and quality in publication.
Advertising, reprint and/or any commercial revenue have no influence on editorial decisions.
