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. General provisions

All manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Board are subject to mandatory procedure of the review.

         The editorial staff shall establish whether the submission is within the scope of the journal and meets the format criteria. The editorial staff shall then forward it either to the Editor-in-Chief, to the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or to the Executive Editor, who shall decide whether the research results described in the article are valid and important and shall determine the reviewers. The reviewer is assigned considering his credibility and research interest, recommendations of authors and members of the Editorial Board, personal experience of the Executive Editor.

  1. Organization of the review

Once the manus­cript has been received, the review process is limited to 2-4 months. However, the editorial board retains the right to set deadlines for reviewing on a case-by-case basis.

The process of reviewing is carried out in several stages:

a) At the first stage, the Reviewer evaluates the manus­cript from the point of its compliance with the journal profile, scientific compliance, and formatting;

b) At the second stage, the content of the manus­cript is checked for its correspondence to the declared title, clear formulation of the objectives and methods, novelty and relevance of the obtained results, personal contribution of the Author to solution of the research problem, correct interpretation of the obtained data and their relevance, sufficient validity of the presented conclusions. Furthermore, the Reviewer notes all inaccuracies, errors, and technical mistakes, as well as thoroughly studies the abstract quality, completeness of the list of references and its compliance with the studied problem.

The results of reviewing shall be described in a justified conclusion:

  • recommended for publishing unaltered;
  • recommended for publishing after correction of the deficiencies noted by the Reviewer;
  • recommended for publishing after correction of the deficiencies and repeated reviewing;
  • not recommended for publishing.

The decision to publish the manus­cript rests ultimately with the Executive Editor in compliance with the feedback provided by the Reviewer. 

  1. Peer review process

The journal conducts a double-blind peer review of manuscripts received. The reviewer reviews the manuscript without knowledge of the authors' names. Likewise, the author does not know the name of the reviewer. Correspondence between the author and the reviewer takes place via e-mail in the e-edition on the journal's website.