Peer Review regulations

The Editorial Board of the journal “Science and Sport: current trends” has approved the following procedure for reviewing manuscripts of scientific papers:

  1. The journal's editorial board reviews all submitted materials relevant to its subject matter for expert evaluation.
  2. A reviewer is an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal or publisher who conducts a scientific examination of copyrighted materials to determine their suitability for publication.
  3. Reviewers include members of the Editorial Board, as well as external experts from among leading scientists and specialists in the journal's field of expertise, who hold an academic degree in a field relevant to the subject matter of the article being reviewed, and who have published on the subject matter of the article within the past three years.
  4. For articles containing the results of primary scientific research and subject to peer review, the scientific review is carried out with the mandatory involvement of external independent experts who are not members of the journal's Editorial Board.
  5. The Editor-in-Chief decides on the selection of a reviewer to conduct the review of an article.
  6. Each article is sent to two reviewers. If necessary, the Editor-in-Chief may send the manuscript for additional review. 
  7. The review process is confidential. Neither the reviewer nor the author is privy to the other's personal information and/or scientific affiliation (double-blind review). A breach of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer claims the materials presented in the article are unreliable or falsified.
  8. The review period is determined in each individual case, taking into account the creation of conditions for the fastest possible publication of the article. The review period is no more than one month.
  9. The review addresses the following issues:
  • the relevance of the article's content to the topic stated in the title;
  • its relevance to current scientific advances;
  • reader accessibility in terms of language, style, layout, clarity of tables, diagrams, figures, and formulas;
  • the advisability of publishing the article in light of previously published publications;
  • the specific strengths and weaknesses of the article, and any corrections and additions that the author should make. 

  10. Following the review of the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations regarding the article (each reviewer's decision is justified):

  • the article is recommended for publication in its current form;
  • the article is recommended for publication after correcting the deficiencies noted by the reviewer;
  • the article requires additional review by another specialist;
  • the article cannot be published in the journal.

  11. If the review contains recommendations for corrections and revisions to the article, the editors send the review text to the author with a proposal to take these into account when preparing a new version of the article or to substantiate their refutation. The article, revised (revised) by the author, is resubmitted for review.

  12. If the authors refuse to revise the materials, they must notify the editors of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version within one month from the date of submission of the review, even in the absence of information from the authors refusing to revise the article, the editors will remove it from the journal's register. In such situations, authors are notified that their manuscript has been withdrawn from registration due to the expiration of the revision period.

  13. If the author and reviewers have irreconcilable disagreements regarding the manuscript, the editorial board may send it for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief at an editorial board meeting.

  14. The decision to reject or accept a manuscript for publication is made at an editorial board meeting in accordance with the reviewers' recommendations.

  15. A positive review is not sufficient grounds for publication. The final decision on the advisability of publication is made by the journal's editorial board and recorded in the minutes of the editorial board meeting. An article not recommended for publication by the editorial board will not be accepted for re-review.

Grounds for rejecting an article for publication may include:

  • non-compliance of the submitted material with the scope of the Journal;
  • non-compliance with the requirements for articles;
  • Negative expert reviews;
  • the Editorial Board's decision, recorded in the minutes of its meeting;
  • the author's failure to comply with ethical principles.

  16. Notification of rejection or acceptance for publication will be sent to the author by email or through the publishing system of this website.

  17. Original reviews will be kept by the Editorial Board or the Editorial Office for five years, and the Editorial Office undertakes to send copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request.