Instructions for Reviewers

                                                                                                                                             Last revised: 12 January 2026
 
Thank you for supporting the peer-review process at Research in Physical Education, Sport and Health (RPESH).
Your evaluation ensures the quality, integrity, and academic value of the journal.

RPESH adheres to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, ensuring that all evaluations follow internationally recognised standards of integrity, transparency, and professionalism. Reviewers are encouraged to consult the full guidelines available here.
 
NotebookLM was used solely as a technical tool to support the visual presentation of the infographic on this guide page; the content and principles presented are based on established journal publishing standards and were not generated by artificial intelligence.
 

Review Model

RPESH operates under a double-blind peer-review system.
Both reviewer and author identities remain anonymous throughout the process.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Provide a fair, unbiased, and timely evaluation.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality of the manuscript and review materials.
  • Declare any conflict of interest immediately. Conflicts include recent collaboration with the authors, employment at the same institution, personal or professional relationships, financial interests, or any situation that may compromise impartiality. Reviewers must decline the assignment if such conflicts exist.
  • Avoid using any data or ideas from the manuscript for personal benefit.
  • Support constructive improvement of the manuscript, even when recommending rejection.
  • Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript to match their personal stylistic preferences when the work is scientifically sound and clearly presented.
  • Reviewers are invited to include their ORCID iD in their profile to ensure correct attribution of review activity where applicable.

Reviewers must not retain, copy, or distribute any part of the manuscript. All files should be deleted after the review is completed. Reviewers may not contact the authors directly or disclose any information about the review process to third parties.

What to Evaluate

Reviewers are asked to assess:
  • Originality of the research
  • Scientific relevance and contribution to the field
  • Methodological soundness
  • Clarity and organization
  • Quality of data and analysis
  • Ethical compliance. Reviewers should verify that ethical approval numbers, consent statements, or permits are clearly indicated when required by the study design.
  • Appropriateness of references. Are references balanced, relevant, and free from unnecessary self-citation, citation manipulation, or coercive citation?
  • Overall suitability for publication

Ethical Questions

Reviewers should address ethical aspects of the submission, such as:
• Has the author published this research before?
• Has the author plagiarised another publication?
• Is the research ethical, and have the appropriate approvals/consent been obtained?
• Is there any indication that the data have been fabricated or inappropriately manipulated?
• Have the authors declared all relevant competing interests?
( *Committee on Publication Ethics, 2019. A short guide to ethical editing for new editors, Version 3.)

Review Structure

  • General comments for editors
  • Comments for the authors (constructive and actionable)
  • Confidential note to the editor (optional)

Recommendation

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form and requires no further revisions. Only minor editorial adjustments may be needed.
  • Revisions Required: The manuscript is publishable but needs specific revisions before acceptance. Authors must address reviewer comments and resubmit the revised version for editorial evaluation.
  • Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and must undergo a full peer-review process again. This is not a rejection, but the work must be significantly improved before reconsideration.
  • Resubmit Elsewhere: The manuscript is not suitable for this journal’s scope, standards, or audience. The work may be more appropriate for a different journal.
  • Decline Submission: The manuscript is not acceptable for publication due to major methodological, ethical, or scientific issues. It cannot be revised to a publishable level within this journal.

Review Ethics (COPE Compliant)

Reviewers must adhere to COPE Ethical Guidelines:
  • No plagiarism scanning without permission
  • No sharing manuscripts with colleagues
  • No identification of authors
  • All critiques must remain professional and respectful

Timelines

Reviewers are expected to submit their evaluation within 14 days unless another deadline is agreed with the editorial office.
If additional time is needed, please inform the editors promptly.
Reviewer Workflow (Technical Instructions)

NotebookLM was used solely as a technical tool to support the visual presentation of the infographic on this guide page; the content and principles presented are based on established journal publishing standards and were not generated by artificial intelligence.

YouTube Logo Guide: How to Review a Manuscript – Step-by-Step Reviewer Workflow

Online Review System

To access your reviewer account, submit your evaluation, or view pending assignments, use the link below:

Access the Online Review System (Log in with your reviewer credentials provided by the editorial office.)

Need Help?

For technical questions or assistance with the review process, please contact:
support(at)pesh.mk