All manuscripts submitted to Peluit undergo a rigorous and structured peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, scientific integrity, and relevance of published articles in sports science, physical education, and related disciplines. The peer-review process follows recognized publication ethics principles, including the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
1. Initial Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the editorial team to determine their alignment with the journal's aims and scope. Manuscripts are assessed for academic quality, relevance to sports science and physical education, methodological rigor, language clarity, compliance with the journal's author guidelines, and similarity using plagiarism detection software. The editorial team reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or fall outside its scope.
2. Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Peluit adopts a double-blind peer-review policy, under which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process to promote impartiality, objectivity, and confidentiality.
3. Reviewer Qualification and Assignment
Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, publication record, and suitability for the subject matter of the manuscript. Reviewers must be independent of the authors and must disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers are normally given 14 days to complete their evaluations, subject to the editorial schedule and the complexity of the manuscript.
4. Review Criteria and Publication Ethics
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
Originality, novelty, and contribution to sports science, physical education, or related disciplines.
Relevance to the aims and scope of Peluit.
Strength of the theoretical framework and relevance of the literature review.
Appropriateness and rigor of the research design, methods, and data analysis.
Validity, reliability, and clarity of the findings, where applicable.
Quality of the discussion, interpretation, and conclusions.
Relevance, accuracy, and currency of references.
Ethical compliance, including research involving human participants, athletes, children, or other vulnerable populations, where applicable.
Clarity of writing, organization, and overall academic presentation.
Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and professional feedback. They must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and conduct their evaluations in accordance with recognized publication ethics principles and COPE guidelines.
5. Reviewer Feedback and Author Revision
Reviewers provide critical assessments and recommendations concerning the manuscript's content, structure, methodology, findings, and scientific contribution. The editorial team communicates the reviewers' comments to the corresponding author for revision, as necessary.
Authors are expected to address the reviewers' comments systematically and submit a revised manuscript within the deadline specified by the editor. Authors should provide a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed or, where appropriate, providing a reasoned justification for not implementing a particular suggestion. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to additional reviewers when necessary.
6. Editorial Decision
After the peer-review and revision processes are completed, the editor makes the final decision by considering the reviewers' recommendations, the scientific quality of the manuscript, its relevance to the journal's scope, and the adequacy of the authors' revisions.
The possible editorial decisions are:
Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision.
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions before a final decision.
Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may be subject to further peer review.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication or is otherwise unsuitable for the journal.
The final decision is communicated to the corresponding author by the editor. The editor retains responsibility for the publication decision and is not obligated to follow reviewers' recommendations when there are justified editorial reasons to reach a different conclusion.
7. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
The identities of reviewers and the contents of review reports are kept confidential throughout the peer-review process. Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest and decline review assignments when such conflicts could compromise their impartiality.
Reviewers must not use, disclose, reproduce, or exploit unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal, professional, or commercial benefit. Editors are also responsible for managing conflicts of interest and maintaining the integrity and confidentiality of editorial decisions.
8. Copyediting and Publication
Manuscripts accepted for publication undergo copyediting, proofreading, and layout editing to ensure linguistic clarity, consistency, and compliance with Peluit's publication standards. Authors may be asked to review the proofs and correct any remaining errors before publication.
Following the completion of the production process, the final articles are published online and made accessible to readers in accordance with the journal's publication and access policies.
