Peer Review Policy

                                                                                                                                         Last revised: 26 May 2026

Research in Physical Education, Sport and Health (RPESH) Journal applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and academic contribution of all submitted manuscripts.

Review Process

  1. Initial Editorial Screening
  • Each submission is checked for compliance with editorial policies, plagiarism standards, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
  • Manuscripts failing basic requirements may be returned to authors before peer review.
  1. Double-Blind Peer Review
  1. Reviewer Responsibilities
  • Provide constructive, unbiased, and timely feedback.
  • Evaluate originality, methodology, clarity, ethical standards, and relevance.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality according to COPE guidelines.
  1. Decisions
    Based on reviewer recommendations, the editor may decide:
  • Accept
  • Minor revisions
  • Major revisions
  • Reject

Revisions must be submitted within the timeframe communicated by the journal.

Review Model

    • The journal operates a double-blind system: Authors do not know reviewers, and reviewers do not know authors.

Peer Review (Round 1 – Major Revision)

      • Reviewers return revision requests
      • Editor sends reviewers’ comments to the authors
      • Authors prepare one Response to Reviewers
      • Authors prepare a revised blinded manuscript with highlighted modifications
      • Authors upload both the Response to Reviewers and the revised manuscript
      • Editor forwards the authors’ documents to the reviewers

Peer Review (Round 2 – Minor Revision)

      • Reviewers return minor revision requests
      • Editor sends comments to the authors
      • Authors respond as in Round 1 (Response to Reviewers + Revised Manuscript)
      • Editor forwards the authors’ documents to the reviewers
      • Reviewers confirm that the revisions are satisfactory (or request further minor changes) and provide a recommendation

Further review rounds depend on the quality and adequacy of the submitted revisions.

Editorial Decision

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated Associate (Handling) Editor, taking into consideration:

      • reviewer reports
      • scientific merit
      • ethical compliance

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on:

      • demonstrated expertise in the manuscript’s subject area
      • absence of conflicts of interest
      • previous high-quality review performance

Invited reviewers are kindly asked to confirm their availability within five days.

Timeline

RPESH is committed to an efficient and high-quality peer-review process.

All submissions undergo an initial editorial screening, and authors typically receive initial feedback within a few days.

Manuscripts that pass this stage proceed to double-blind peer review, with the review process completed in a timely manner. The journal aims to complete peer review within approximately 4–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the extent of revisions required.

RPESH currently prioritises efficient processing of submissions in line with its upcoming publication schedule.

Confidentiality & Ethical Standards

The peer-review process strictly follows COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. All manuscripts and reviewer reports are treated as confidential documents.