Peer Review Policy and Reviewer Guidelines

Peer Review Policy and Reviewer Guidelines

"The Shield - Research Journal of Physical Education & Sports Science," published by the University of Sindh, Jamshoro, employs a rigorous, double-blind peer review process to ensure scholarly rigor, ethical compliance, and high relevance to the field of physical education and sports sciences.

Steps of the Peer Review Process

The peer review process follows distinct stages to ensure quality control:

  1. Editorial Triage (Initial Assessment):
    • Scope Check: The editorial team verifies the submission aligns with the journal’s focus (e.g., sports physiology, coaching methodologies, sports sociology).
    • Compliance Check: Adherence to formatting (e.g., APA 7th edition referencing) and essential requirements (e.g., ethical approval for athlete studies) is verified.
    • Initial Rejection: Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage for poor English, lack of originality (e.g., duplicated training protocols), or immediate irrelevance.
    • Timeline: 2–3 weeks.
  2. Internal Review by Section Editor:
    • A Section Editor (an expert in the relevant subfield, such as sports biomechanics or sports management) assesses the manuscript's novelty and methodological soundness.
    • Decision: The editor decides whether to proceed to external review or reject (e.g., for flawed statistical analysis in performance data).
  3. External Peer Review (Double-Blind):
    • Reviewer Selection: 2–3 independent experts (e.g., sports physiologists, sports psychologists) are invited. Anonymity is strictly maintained between authors and reviewers.
    • Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers evaluate originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance (e.g., COPE guidelines, informed consent), and contribution to sports sciences.
    • Timeline: 3–4 weeks.
  4. Decision-Making:
    • The Section Editor compiles the anonymous feedback and recommends a decision (accept, minor/major revisions, or reject).
    • The Editor-in-Chief issues the final decision, considering reviewer input and overall scope.
  5. Revisions and Re-Review:
    • Authors must address all critiques in a point-by-point response (e.g., clarifying sample size justification in a sports nutrition study).
    • Revised manuscripts may undergo re-evaluation by the original reviewers to ensure all points are satisfied.
  6. Copyediting and Publication:
    • Accepted manuscripts are formatted, and authors review final proofs (e.g., verifying tables on sprint performance data).
    • The article is published online under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license, fostering the global exchange of sports sciences knowledge.
    • Total Submission to Publication: Approximately 12–14 weeks (highly dependent on the complexity and speed of author revisions).

 

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are integral to upholding the academic integrity and quality of "The Shield." They must adhere to the following expectations, aligned with the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Core Ethical Obligations

  • Confidentiality: All manuscript details (e.g., athlete data, unpublished methodologies) must be treated as strictly confidential. Do not share, discuss, or use unpublished content for personal or professional gain.
  • Unbiased Evaluation: Manuscripts must be assessed solely on scholarly merit and scientific rigor, free from bias related to the authors’ identity, institution, or nationality.
  • Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Reviewers must immediately disclose any financial or personal relationships that could compromise impartiality (e.g., prior collaboration, funding ties). If a conflict exists, the reviewer must decline the review.
  • Timely Review: Submit evaluations within the requested timeframe (2–3 weeks) to maintain the publication schedule.

Providing Constructive Feedback

Review reports must be specific, actionable, and constructive:

  • Methodological Rigor: Evaluate the validity of the study’s design and execution. Check data collection methods (e.g., wearable tech accuracy) and highlight flaws (e'g., small sample sizes in injury prevention studies).
  • Ethical Considerations: Ensure full compliance with ethical standards, verifying institutional ethics approval and participant consent (e.g., for athlete trials). Flag any evidence of plagiarism or data manipulation.
  • Clarity and Presentation: Assess the logical flow, readability, and clear presentation of results (e.g., biomechanical data in tables/figures).
  • Literature Contextualization: Confirm that references are accurate, conform to APA 7th edition, and that the study is appropriately positioned within the existing sports sciences literature.
  • Originality and Contribution: Clearly judge whether the work represents a significant advance in the field (e.g., novel insights into sports pedagogy or athlete recovery).