Sport i Turystyka relies on peer review to support the scientific quality, methodological rigor, and integrity of published work. Reviewers are expected to provide independent, objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts. These guidelines follow the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and, where applicable, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
1. Role of the reviewer
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts within the limits of their expertise and provide clear, evidence-based comments that assist the editors in reaching an informed decision and help authors improve their work.
Reviews should be objective, constructive, respectful, and focused on the scientific content of the manuscript. Personal criticism of authors is not appropriate. Reviewers should clearly distinguish major concerns that may affect the validity or interpretation of the work from minor issues related to presentation or reporting.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Final editorial decisions are made in accordance with the Journal's Publishing Policies.
2. Reviewer eligibility and conflicts of interest
Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they have sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript and are able to provide an impartial assessment within the requested time frame. If important aspects of the manuscript fall outside their expertise, reviewers should inform the editor.
Reviewers must disclose any relationships or circumstances that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their objectivity. Relevant conflicts may include personal, professional, academic, or financial relationships with the authors or their institutions.
Reviewers from the same institution as any of the authors are not eligible to review the manuscript. Reviewers should also decline where they have a current or recent close professional collaboration, supervisory or mentoring relationship, or other relationship with an author that could reasonably affect the independence of the review.
If a potential conflict becomes apparent after accepting the review, the reviewer should promptly inform the Editorial Office.
3. Confidentiality
Submitted manuscripts and associated materials are confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, distribute, or use information from a manuscript for personal, professional, or research advantage before publication.
Reviewers must not forward the manuscript or delegate the review to colleagues, trainees, or other individuals without prior permission from the Journal. Where another person contributes substantively to the review with editorial approval, that contribution must be disclosed to the editor.
Reviewers must not contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript without prior permission from the Journal.
Reviewers must comply with the Journal's Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence. Generative AI must not replace the reviewer's independent scientific judgment, and reviewers remain fully responsible for the content of their reviews. Manuscripts must not be uploaded to generative AI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured, and any substantive use of generative AI in preparing a review must be disclosed to the Journal.
4. Conducting the review
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using the Journal's structured review form. The assessment should consider, where applicable:
- the relevance and contribution of the work;
- the clarity of the research question or objective;
- the appropriateness of the study design and methodology;
- the adequacy of statistical or other analytical methods;
- the clarity and completeness of reporting;
- the validity and interpretation of the results;
- whether the conclusions are supported by the findings;
- the appropriate use of relevant literature; and
- the overall clarity and quality of presentation.
Reviewers should provide comments that explain the basis for their assessment rather than relying solely on ratings or general statements.
Comments intended for the authors should be constructive and sufficiently clear to guide revision. Reviewers may also provide separate confidential comments to the editor where necessary.
Reviewers should not request citation of their own work or other specific publications unless those references are genuinely relevant and necessary to improve the scientific content of the manuscript.
5. Research-integrity and ethical concerns
Reviewers are not expected to conduct a formal investigation of research misconduct. However, if they identify a potential concern during review, they should report it confidentially to the editor.
Such concerns may include suspected plagiarism or inappropriate textual overlap, duplicate or redundant publication, questionable data or analyses, ethical concerns, inappropriate citation practices, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other issues that may affect the integrity of the work.
The reviewer should describe the concern and, where possible, indicate the relevant part of the manuscript or supporting information. The Editorial Office is responsible for determining whether further investigation or action is required in accordance with the Journal's Ethics Policy.
6. Timeliness
Reviewers should respond promptly to invitations and accept a review only when they are able to complete it within the agreed time frame.
If circumstances change or additional time is required, the Editorial Office should be informed as soon as possible.
If a reviewer is unable to undertake the review, they may suggest alternative reviewers with appropriate expertise, provided that such recommendations are made objectively and without attempting to influence the editorial outcome.
7. Submitting the review
Reviewers should submit their assessment through the Journal's electronic review system using the structured review form.
The review should include an overall recommendation, constructive comments for the authors, and, where necessary, confidential comments for the editor.
The recommendation should be consistent with the concerns identified in the review, with major issues clearly distinguished from optional suggestions.
The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor.