Guidelines for reviewers

The review process is an important aspect of the publication process of an article which should be published in International Journal of Racket Sports Science.

 

The invitation

Before you accept or decline, consider the following questions:

  • Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.
  • Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.
  • Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.

 

Respond to the invitation as soon as you can – delay in your decision slows down the review process, whether you agree to review or not. If you decline the invitation, provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

 

Before you start

If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor.

 

Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.

 

Your review report

Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name.

 

Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data.

 

For the review, please use IJRSS Reviewer form.

 

Checklist

  • Summarize the article in a short paragraph. This shows the editor you have read and understood the research.
  • Give your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting, whether it has a sufficient impact and adds to the knowledge base.
  • Point out any proceedings-specific points – does it adhere to the proceeding’s standards?
  • If you suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, raise your suspicions with the editor, providing as much detail as possible.
  • Give specific comments and suggestions, including about layout and format, Title, Abstract, Introduction, Graphical Abstracts and/or Highlights, Method, statistical errors, Results, Conclusion/Discussion, language and References.

 

Your recommendation

When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article:

  • Reject (explain reason in report)
  • Accept without revision
  • Revise – either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article)

 

The final decision

The editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. The editor will weigh all views and may call for a third opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision. The editorial system provides reviewers with a notification of the final decision.

 

You can find our review form here.