Peer Review Process
The authors who submit manuscripts for publication agree to undergo a reviewing process. All submitted manuscripts are first subjected to editorial review, and, subsequently, peer review by experts.
The submitted manuscripts will not be sent to reviewers representing the authors’ institutions, or to persons who can be in conflict of interest with the authors. All reviews are confidential and anonymous. The reviewers may not use the content of the manuscript before its publication.
The submitted manuscripts will not be sent to reviewers representing the authors’ institutions, or to persons who can be in conflict of interest with the authors. All reviews are confidential and anonymous. The reviewers may not use the content of the manuscript before its publication.
The manuscript is given an editorial number for identification at all stages of the editorial process. The author is notified about the reviews and corresponds with the Editor of the journal concerning remarks or qualification of the study for printing.
- Compatibility with the scope of the TRENDS in Sport Sciences
- Elements of novelty and originality
- Scientific and/or practical value of the article
- Ethic requirements
- Abstract depicting of the entire article
- Material and design of the experiments
- Methodology and statistics
- Credibility and importance of results
- Presentation of data (necessary tables and figures)
- Discussion and interpretation of results
- Conclusions logically justified by the evidence adduced
- Selection of up-to-date references
Of these, the main factors taken into account are significance and originality.
The possible decisions include:
- Accept
- Accept after minor corrections
- Re-evaluate after major revision
- Reject
Articles that are often rejected include those that are poorly written or organized or are written in poor English. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed. Articles may be rejected without review if the Editor-in-Chief considers the article obviously not suitable for publication.
The ultimate decision regarding the publication of the manuscript, irrespective of the review's outcomes, resides with the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, or another duly authorized person. The decision is irrevocable and appeal is not admissible.
DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Promptness: A selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and decline to review the paper.
Confidentiality: The manuscripts received for review will be treated as confidential documents. They will not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should attempt to identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that a result or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
The ultimate decision regarding the publication of the manuscript, irrespective of the review's outcomes, resides with the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, or another duly authorized person. The decision is irrevocable and appeal is not admissible.
DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Promptness: A selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and decline to review the paper.
Confidentiality: The manuscripts received for review will be treated as confidential documents. They will not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should attempt to identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that a result or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.