Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, confidential, and timely evaluations of manuscripts submitted to the International Journal of Social Studies in Sport (IJSSS).

Review reports should focus on the scholarly quality, originality, theoretical or conceptual contribution, methodological appropriateness, clarity, ethical compliance, and relevance of the manuscript to the aims and scope of the journal.

Reviewers should decline an invitation if:

  • the manuscript falls outside their area of expertise

  • they have a conflict of interest

  • they cannot complete the review within the requested time frame

  • any other circumstance may compromise their objectivity or independence

All manuscripts and related materials must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, reproduce, or use unpublished information obtained through the peer review process for personal, academic, or professional advantage.

Reviewers are expected to provide clear, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive comments that help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts. Personal criticism, discriminatory language, or unsupported judgments should be avoided.

Reviewers should consider, where applicable:

  • relevance to the aims and scope of IJSSS

  • originality and scholarly contribution

  • theoretical or conceptual framework

  • clarity of the research problem and objectives

  • appropriateness of the research design and methodology

  • adequacy of data collection and analysis

  • quality of interpretation and discussion

  • ethical compliance

  • consistency between findings and conclusions

  • limitations and implications of the study

  • accuracy, relevance, and currency of references

  • clarity and organization of the manuscript

Any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, unethical research conduct, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, or other serious publication ethics concern should be reported confidentially to the editor.

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned editor after considering the reviewer reports, academic quality, relevance, originality, and compliance with the journal’s policies.