Review Procedure
The editorial process is divided into three stages: document submission, peer review, and professional editing.
1. Initial Review
Upon receiving the manuscript, the Editorial Committee verifies its compliance with the Guidelines for Authors of the Journal. Papers may be rejected in the initial review for various reasons, such as lack of thematic alignment with the areas covered by the Journal, absence of originality (verified through Turnitin), failure to comply with preparation and submission guidelines, as well as the relevance and scope of the research. Manuscripts that meet these criteria move on to the Peer Review.
Ethics. The journal Physical Activity and Human Development adheres to the recommendations and good practices (core practices) of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and for this purpose includes a series of ethical considerations in its policy. Finally, if a manuscript is considered viable after the editorial review, the peer review will begin.
2. Peer Review
This process follows a "double-blind" model, preserving the anonymity of both authors and reviewers to ensure impartiality. Manuscripts accepted for peer review are sent to at least two external reviewers with academic and research expertise in the field. In case of negative evaluations or no response after fifteen days, a third reviewer is consulted. The possible decisions are: Accepted, Accepted with minor changes, Resubmission required, or Rejected. The average review time is up to 6 months, although it may be shorter with prompt responses from reviewers.
Manuscript Submission. The editorial assistant will send the manuscripts to the reviewers along with the respective evaluation form, setting a deadline for the return of their feedback.
Results. Once both reviews are received, the following may occur:
- Approved without changes: Both reviewers approve the publication of the manuscript without changes. The manuscript is then reviewed by the editorial team for final approval.
- Approved with changes: The reviewers provide positive feedback but suggest changes. The manuscript is returned to the corresponding author with recommendations for revision and correction.
- Rejected: Both reviewers give negative feedback. The editorial assistant informs the corresponding author that the manuscript was rejected, attaching the reviewers’ comments.
- Reviewer Conflict: One reviewer approves and the other rejects the manuscript. A third reviewer is appointed by the editorial team, and their decision is final.
Approval. Manuscripts accepted by the reviewers and corrected by the authors will be considered by the Editorial Committee for publication. The corresponding author will be informed of this decision.
Double-blind System. All manuscripts will be evaluated anonymously by at least two reviewers under the "double-blind" process. This mechanism guarantees anonymity between authors and reviewers, who never have direct contact, only through the editor. Any controversy during the evaluation process will be resolved by the Editorial Committee.
3. Editorial Decision
The Editor and Editorial Committee, upon receiving the review results, will communicate the editorial decision to the corresponding author with justified arguments. If accepted with adjustments, the Editor returns the manuscript with the reviewers’ recommendations, which must be implemented and submitted back to the Editorial Committee within 15 days, along with a letter addressed to each reviewer responding to their suggestions.
Final Review and Publication: Once approved for publication, style editing, layout, and publication on the editorial management platform begin. This process may take up to one month. It is important to note that, due to the evaluation process, immediate publication cannot be guaranteed by the authors.
Author Responsibility: Authors must actively participate in the editing process as soon as the editor requests it. Failure to respond to editing queries may result in delays or even the rejection of the article for publication.
To facilitate this process, authors are asked to write with maximum rigor, verify spelling, use short and consistent paragraphs, and correctly apply punctuation marks. They must also follow the editorial norms and conventions requested. The Editorial Committee reserves the right to modify the title of documents and make any editorial changes deemed necessary to ensure the publication of a clean, coherent, and readable version.
