Information For Reviewers

Peer review is a fundamental pillar of the editorial process at International Journal of Racket Sports Science (IJRSS). We deeply appreciate the work of those who collaborate as reviewers, as their efforts ensure the quality and scientific rigor of our publication.

1. Before Accepting a Review

Before accepting or declining an invitation to review a manuscript, consider the following:

  • Is this article within your area of expertise? Only accept if you are capable of performing a thorough and well-founded evaluation.

  • Do you have any conflicts of interest? If so, notify the editor before accepting the review.

  • Do you have enough time? Ensure that you can meet the established deadline, as reviewing can be time-consuming.

We kindly ask that you respond to the invitation as soon as possible. If you are unable to review, we would appreciate it if you could recommend alternative reviewers.

2. Confidentiality and Responsibility

The manuscript and all associated materials are confidential. They should not be shared or discussed with third parties without prior authorization from the editorial team.

Reviews must be objective, impartial, and respectful. Personal or identifying comments (such as your name) should not be included.

3. Review Process

3.1 Internal Evaluation (Editorial Team)

The editorial team (chief editors, associate editors, or section editors) conducts an initial review to verify the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s formal and thematic requirements.

If the manuscript does not meet editorial or formal criteria, it will be returned to the authors for revision.

If there is a thematic mismatch, the manuscript will be rejected.

The chief editor will notify the decision.

Once the manuscript passes the internal review, it proceeds to external review.

3.2 External Evaluation (Peer Review)

Manuscripts are reviewed under a double-blind system, ensuring the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. The review process is carried out through the OJS 3.3 platform.

At least two expert reviewers are assigned.

In case of discrepancies between evaluations, a third review will be requested.

Possible decisions are: rejection, acceptance without changes, or acceptance with minor or major revisions.

The editorial team makes the final decision based on all reports.

3.3 Estimated Timeline of the Process

  • Week 1: Assignment to reviewers.

  • Weeks 2-3: Reception of review reports.

  • Week 4: Reception of the revised version from authors.

  • Week 5: Final review.

  • Week 6: Resolution and submission to layout if accepted.

The entire review process should not exceed 4-6 weeks. If there is a delay, the editor will communicate the corresponding resolution.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess aspects such as:

  • Originality and novelty

  • Interest and scientific relevance

  • Clarity of writing

  • Methodological rigor

  • Structure and overall coherence

  • Appropriateness of the title and abstract

  • Quality of references and formal presentation

If you suspect plagiarism, fraud, or other ethical issues, inform the editor immediately.

5. How to Prepare the Review Report

Your review will help the editor decide whether to publish the article. It is essential to give your general opinion, along with specific observations about the content. Comments should be respectful, constructive, and must not include personal details or your name.

It is important to identify potential weaknesses and explain and justify your comments in a way that both editors and authors can fully understand your reasoning. Indicate whether your observations are your personal opinion or based on the article’s data.

For the review, please use the IJRSS evaluation form. You will find it upon accepting the review invitation on the platform. You can also access a copy here.

Use the review form available in OJS 3.3.

  • Summarize the article in a short paragraph to demonstrate your understanding of the content.

  • Provide a general evaluation and specific comments on various sections: title, abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, references, etc.

  • Highlight strengths and weaknesses clearly, with concrete suggestions for improvement.

  • Maintain a constructive, respectful, and objective tone.

6. Final Recommendation

At the conclusion of your review, select one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without changes

  • Accept with minor revisions

  • Revise with major changes (indicate if you are willing to review again)

  • Reject (provide detailed justification)

The editorial decision will be communicated to the reviewers through the OJS platform.

7. Recognition of Reviewers

The work of reviewers will be publicly acknowledged through the periodic publication of their names and institutional affiliations. Additionally, if requested, a certificate signed by the journal’s management will be issued.