Peer Review Process
IJSC Quality Control Process
Peer Review Process
The International Journal of Strength and Conditioning (IJSC) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific rigor and integrity. Our peer review process is central to this commitment, ensuring that all published articles contribute valuable knowledge to the field of Strength and Conditioning (S&C).
- Initial Manuscript Evaluation:
Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial review to ensure the manuscript aligns with the journal's scope, adheres to our submission guidelines, and meets basic quality standards.
- Selection of Reviewers:
Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are sent to at least two expert reviewers in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, reputation, and previous experience in peer reviewing.
Our open review system ensures transparency by disclosing both the authors' and reviewers' identities. This approach fosters constructive feedback and open dialogue, enhancing the quality and integrity of the review process. Reviewers provide detailed comments to help authors improve their work
- Reviewer Reports:
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on originality, methodology, contribution to the field, presentation of results, and relevance of discussion. They provide detailed comments to help authors improve their work and recommend one of the following actions:
- Accept without revision
- Accept with minor revisions
- Revise and resubmit
- Editorial Decision:
Based on the reviewers' feedback and recommendations, the editorial team makes a decision regarding the manuscript's publication. The corresponding author is informed of the decision and provided with the reviewers' comments.
- Revision and Resubmission:
If revisions are recommended, authors are expected to address the reviewers' comments and resubmit the revised manuscript. This revised version will then be evaluated by the editorial team, and possibly sent back to the original or new reviewers for further assessment.
- Final Decision:
Once all revisions are completed to the satisfaction of the editorial team, a final decision is made, and the manuscript is either accepted for publication or rejected.
- Feedback and Continuous Improvement:
We value feedback from both authors and reviewers to continuously refine and improve our peer review process. This ensures that IJSC remains at the forefront of scientific publishing in the field of S&C.
Reviewers are expected to handle manuscripts confidentially and must declare any potential conflicts of interest. They should recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts from which they might benefit personally or professionally.
Reviewers are asked to adhere to the following guidelines:
- Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents. They must not share or discuss the manuscript with others unless authorized by the journal editor.
- Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
- Reviewers should complete their reviews within the stipulated timeframe. If they cannot meet the deadline, they should inform the journal editor and, if necessary, decline the review.
4. Conflict of Interest:
- Reviewers should declare any potential conflicts of interest. If they have any professional or personal affiliations that might bias their review, they should recuse themselves.
- If reviewers are asked to review a manuscript they have previously reviewed for another journal, they should notify the editor.
5. Reporting Plagiarism:
- If reviewers suspect that a manuscript is substantially similar to another published work or contains plagiarized content, they should report it to the journal editor.
6. Reviewer Misconduct:
- Reviewers should not use knowledge of the work they're reviewing before its publication to further their own interests or advantage.
7. Constructive Feedback:
- While reviewers are expected to identify flaws or issues in a manuscript, they should provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.
- Reviewers should only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the necessary expertise. If they feel unqualified to review a specific aspect of a manuscript, they should inform the editor.
9. Respect for Authors' Data:
- Reviewers should not replicate or use the manuscript's unpublished data, methodology, or interpretations without the author's explicit permission.
10. Avoiding Bias:
- Reviewers should avoid making decisions based on personal, racial, ethnic, national, or gender biases. Reviews should be based solely on the manuscript's scientific merit.
- Reviewers should clearly articulate their recommendations to the editor, providing a clear rationale for their decision (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, reject).
- If reviewers are asked to re-review a manuscript they've previously reviewed (after revisions have been made), they should ensure that the authors have adequately addressed their previous concerns.
Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Appeals should be substantiated and sent to the editorial team at firstname.lastname@example.org. Each appeal is considered on its merits.
IJSC values the immense contribution of our peer reviewers. We recognize their efforts through various means, including acknowledgment in annual journal issues and opportunities for professional development.
Editorial Panel and Editor in Chief:
The Editorial Panel is responsible for the initial evaluation of manuscripts, ensuring they align with the journal's scope and standards. If a manuscript passes this initial scrutiny, a member of the Editorial Panel takes on the role of a managing editor for that particular submission. They oversee the peer review process, liaise with reviewers, and ensure timely feedback to authors. They also play a pivotal role in the final decision-making process, considering reviewer feedback and the manuscript's overall quality.
The Editor-in-Chief has the final say in the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. They ensure the consistency, quality, and integrity of the journal's content. The Editor-in-Chief also provides guidance and direction for the journal's overall strategy, ensuring it remains at the forefront of sports performance and exercise science research.
More information on the Editorial Panel can be found here.
Publication Dates and Timeline
At the International Journal of Strength and Conditioning (IJSC), we understand the importance of timely publication while maintaining the highest standards of peer review and editorial excellence. To provide clarity for our authors, here's a breakdown of our typical publication timeline:
- Initial Evaluation: Once your manuscript is submitted, it undergoes an initial evaluation by our editorial team. This process typically takes up to 1 week. If your manuscript meets our criteria, it is then sent out to reviewers.
- Review Phase: Our dedicated reviewers assess the manuscript's quality, relevance, and contribution to the field. This phase is crucial for ensuring the scientific rigor of our publications and usually takes around 6 weeks. At the end of this period, a primary editorial decision is made.
- Revisions and Copyediting: If your manuscript is accepted with revisions, you'll be given feedback and suggestions to enhance your work. Incorporating these changes and undergoing subsequent copyediting to ensure clarity, coherence, and adherence to our style guide typically takes another 6 weeks.
- Publication: Once the revisions are approved and the manuscript has been finalized, it is queued for publication in the upcoming issue of the IJSC. The total time from submission to publication is estimated to be 12-16 weeks.
We appreciate the hard work and patience of our authors throughout this process. Our timeline ensures that each manuscript receives the attention and scrutiny it deserves, upholding the IJSC's reputation for quality and integrity in sport science publishing.