Guidelines for Reviewers

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Physical Activity and Human Development are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers under a double-blind peer review model. Their comments are essential to ensure scientific quality and support editorial decisions.

Selection of Reviewers

To select appropriate reviewers, the following criteria are considered:

  • Relevant experience to evaluate the manuscript.
  • Appropriate academic qualifications (ideally a doctoral degree).
  • Specialization in the corresponding subject area.
  • Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest before starting the review.
  • Promptly decline the invitation if unavailable and suggest alternative reviewers.
  • Submit the review within the established deadline.
  • Evaluate the manuscript objectively and provide a clear and detailed report.
  • Report any suspicion of misconduct to the editors.
  • Maintain absolute confidentiality of the received manuscript.

To ensure an efficient editorial process, reviewers are requested to carefully read the following guidelines.

The journal strictly follows the principles of COPE. Reviewers are encouraged to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Timeliness of Response

Timely communication is essential for a fair and consistent review process. Reviewers are expected to:

  • Accept or decline the invitation promptly, based on the title and abstract.
  • Submit the review within the agreed timeframe or inform the editor if an extension is needed.
  • Suggest alternative reviewers if unable to complete the evaluation.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest (personal, financial, academic, professional, political, or religious) before beginning the review.

Confidentiality

The assigned manuscript must be treated with strict confidentiality. It may not be shared, cited, or used prior to publication.

Reviewers must prepare their own reports. If they wish to involve another person, prior permission must be requested.

Suspected Misconduct

Any indication of plagiarism, duplication, or unethical practice must be reported immediately to the journal.

Rigorous Evaluation for Reviewers

Reviewers must complete a form assessing the following key aspects:

  1. Authenticity and Originality: Original contribution and absence of plagiarism.
  2. Relevance and Impact: Value for the field and the journal’s audience.
  3. Scientific Rigor: Methodological quality and soundness of conclusions.
  4. Research Ethics: Compliance with ethical standards.
  5. Language Quality: Clear writing free of errors.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive comments that help improve the quality of the manuscript.