The IUSCA Journal aims to enhance the Strength and Conditioning (S&C) community by:
- Providing a forum for the publication of research, commentaries and reviews that are of interest to researchers, students and professionals within the field of S&C
- Helping to advance the field of S&C
- Strengthening the research and educational base of S&C
- Providing an evidence base for optimal S&C support to athletic populations and wider community
The following types of manuscripts can be considered for peer-reviewed publication in the IUSCA Journal:
Original Research articles
These can be viewed as traditional research articles that you would expect to find in academic journals. Although there is no set word limit, these are expected to be 2000-4000 words, have appropriate figures and/or tables, up to 80 references, and an abstract of 150–300 words. They should include Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. It may also include a Conclusion and Future Recommendations.
The Journal also publishes brief reports that describe interesting new ideas or innovations. Brief reports may raise new questions of interest to the Journal readership. Brief reports typically are judged using the same metrics as are other research articles. Brief reports should have no more than 2,000 words (excluding abstract, tables, and references) and a maximum of three tables or figures and 25 references.
Guidelines from the IUSCA
As the official journal of the IUSCA, this journal published guidelines and position statements relevant to the field of university based S&C. Any topic relevant to university S&C support and delivery can be covered, including program administration and development.
Informed perspectives discuss important topics within S&C, with an emphasis on synthesising and evaluating research findings over the past five years and identifying areas for future study. Authors will generally be respected authorities in the area and may include a fellow or junior faculty member as a co-author. The manuscript should be about 4500-5000 words with an abstract of around 400 words and references as needed.
Systematic Review and Meta Analysis
A systematic review aims to collect, synthesis and summarise all of the research currently available on a particular topic. A meta analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarise these results.
Narrative reviews are different from systematic reviews in that they tend to be mainly descriptive and focus on evidence as selected by the author. Narrative reviews are therefore subject to the opinion of the author, and as such, should be written by experts within the field. These can be particularly useful where the evidence base is limited and can not be clearly defined. Before conducting a narrative review, prospective authors should contact the Editorial Panel to determine the suitability for the Journal.
Case studies should outline specific interventions that have taken place and the rationale behind them. They should include all relevant details including age, sex, level of competition, etc. and should also detail all results collected and analysis of the data. The content should be rationalised using the available literature and comments can be discussed with regards to outcomes and recommendations for future practice.
Commentaries regarding recent articles published within the Journal can be submitted. These should be evidence based and references appropriately. They may retort or expand upon the themes within an article, giving another perspective to the issues discussed.
Book reviews can be submitted, discussion the themes and overall quality of an in-print book. This should assess the evidence base and critically review the content, quality, meaning, and significance of the book. The length of these articles are expected to be in the region of 500-2000 words.
Ideas and Innovations
Authors may submit manuscripts proposing innovative ideas to advance the field of S&C. Manuscripts should include a thoughtful review of the relevant literature of the topic to support an argument that current ideas or practices should be changed to help the field progress. Based on the literature review, the authors should offer an alternative conceptualization of the topic that might prove more fruitful as well as recommendations for the needed research. Reviews of submitted manuscripts will focus on the significance of the topic, the importance of the idea or innovation, and the clarity of the argument and conclusions. The title should convey the novelty in one way or another.
Correct errors in preceding papers. The manuscript title reads as follows:
Corrigendum to "TITLE" published in JOURNAL, VOLUME, PAGES, YEAR. Please note that corrigenda are only possible for final revised journal papers and not for the corresponding discussion paper.
To submit an article please click here.
Authors are expected to follow our basic guidelines when submitting a manuscript. We have attempted to keep these very simple, to encourage submissions from a wider range of practitioners/professionals.
1. The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
2. The submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, or RTF document file format.
3. Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
4. The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses).
5. All illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
6. Spelling, grammar and tone is consistant throughout - References are consistant to one recognised style.
Conflicts of interest
Conflicts of interest comprise those which may not be fully apparent and which may influence the judgment of author, reviewers, and editors. They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived. They may be personal, commercial, political, academic or financial.
“Financial” interests may include employment, research funding, stock or share ownership, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies and company support for staff.
(1) Such interests, where relevant, must be declared to editors by researchers, authors, and reviewers.
(2) Editors should also disclose relevant conflicts of interest to their readers. If in doubt, disclose.
Sometimes editors may need to withdraw from the review and selection process for the relevant submission.