REVISTA DE EDUCAÇÃO FÍSICA

ISSN 2447-8946 (eletronic)

ISSN 0102-8464 (print)

The evaluation process by pairs of an article refers to the judgment by external peers, regarding the relevance, originality, scientific rigor, the interpretation of results, and the meaning of a manuscript held under the expertise of the author on the subject in a field study or practice.

 

Individual reviewers are critical part of the scientific publishing process and extremely important for the Journal of Physical Education, ensuring the highest possible quality for publication. While not a perfect process, peer review is an important contribution to science, helping journals publishers and readers to identify the most important and highest quality studies. Additionally, it helps to identify possible cases of misconduct scientific.

 

The peer review process takes an average of 8-12 weeks. Click here to see the flow chart describing the peer review process used by the Journal of Physical Education.

 

The Journal of Physical Education adopts double-blind process in peer review: the authors don't know the identity of the reviewers and reviewers do not know the identity of the authors. In despite of it, occasionally reviewers can recognize the origin of the study (eg. due to specific laboratory procedures or study populations described) and the likely authors. In this case, if an collaborator feel that can not hold a impartial assessment or have some kind of conflict of interest, it is expected that he/she refuses the invitation to proceed the review or at least declare a potential conflict of interest to publishers. In most cases, reviewers can provide a fair and useful evaluation.

 

 

General guidelines for the reviewer

 

Upon receiving a manuscript, the reviewer will send comments to the author (s) from the editorial office. The reviewers' comments are potentially used by the authors as the basis for undertaking reviews. Please avoid harsh statements, caustic, arrogant or patronizing. Please provide constructive comments on the manuscript and objectives. Reviewer comments and evaluations should be logical and systematic. Comments specifically directed to the editor can be written in a more direct language.

 

Please make a general observation, as well as specific comments. Comments and recommendations should be useful to both (authors and publishers). Draw up specific recommendations on how the manuscript could be improved. Even if your recommendation is to reject the manuscript, it is still appropriate to provide recommendations on how it could be improved.

 

As for the grammatical issues if they are interfering with reading, understanding and interpretation of the manuscript, please provide specific comments.

 

Please send your critical report within the limit of 20 days specified time. If this time circumstances change and you can not complete the review on time, please contact the editor-in-chief (editor_ch_ref@ccfex.ensino.eb.br) immediately. Anonymity is preserved, and reviewers should not be identified for authors without permission of the publisher.

 

The manuscript in question is a confidential document that should not be discussed or shown to third parties without permission of the publisher.

 

In a rare situation in which you find a potential conflict of interest with the authors or content of the manuscript you've been asked to comment, please contact the editor-in-chief (editor_ch_ref@ccfex.ensino.eb.br) as soon as possible.

 

 

Areas of interest in the review

 

Study Design and Interpretation

 

Consider the following points to evaluate an article:

 

• Are the findings reported in the article important and original, so that contribute to the body of knowledge of sports science or physical activity and health or physical training or sports management (as applicable)?

 

• Do the main results or its applications have been published previously? Is there something new being added?

 

• Do the aim of the study has been described clearly and the justification of the study was provided and is this suitable?

 

• Does the research project seem appropriate in relation to the purpose? Are there fatal flaws in the study design?

 

• Were the methods and analyzes presented adequate and clear enough to be repeated by other researchers? Were the conclusions justified and logically consistent with the results presented?

 

• Were the practical applications of the study presented clear and concisely?

 

• Were comparisons of study results with the existing literature  conducted?

 

Presentation of the manuscript

 

• Did The manuscript follow the rules of publication of the journal?

 

• Is the manuscript format proper and consistent , and was it clearly written?

 

• As for grammar and idioms of Portuguese / English language was the are presented in an acceptable standard? The text is clear and unambiguous? Without rewriting the manuscript or impose their own style, please identify the text that is wordy or ambiguous. Identify also the text that must be complemented or abridged by specific references to sentences or paragraphs, as appropriate.

 

• Are figures and tables relevant? Is there unnecessary duplication of results in figures, tables and text? are there results that could be better presented in graphical format? Have all abbreviations  been defined and are the complementary descriptive captions to the title so that each table / figure self-explanatory?

 

• Were figures and tables properly prepared in accordance with the instructions for authors?

 

• Do the title and abstract accurately reflect the content and conclusions of the study?

 

• Are the in-text citations and references in the list in line with the guidelines of the Vancouver Imperial College of London style?

 

Considerations Statistics

 

• The authors have clearly identified the study design and statistical methods?

 

• There was some concern about sampling bias or measurement bias?

 

• Statistical tests were appropriate for the data format - normally distributed data, continuous, nominal or ordinal structure, etc., and the purpose of the study?

 

• The size and / or the power of the sample was reported as appropriate? The sample size was sufficient to adequately answer the research question? To estimate valid and reliable measures of association or effect? To make generalizable reasonable conclusions?

 

• The variability of the sample was reported with standard deviation and precision of the estimates of the analysis indicated by confidence intervals?

 

• The magnitudes of effects were reported and interpreted with the criteria?

 

• The real values ​​of the P-value were informed? The results should be reported so that the number of digits is scientifically relevant. Indirect indications of statistical significance such as p <0.05 or p = NS hinder the use of data by other researchers who conduct meta-analyzes.

 

• The statistical terms, abbreviations and symbols standard and non-standard defined appropriately, being components of said computer programs?

 

Ethical considerations

 

• Are there any evidence of plagiarism, simultaneous submission to another journal, or excessive fragmentation of the results to achieve various publications of manuscripts? Is there any suggestion of unethical practices with the adopted experimental procedures involving care, treatment, or management of human beings? Contact the editors if there any ethical concerns during a review of the manuscript.

 

Reviewer comments to the editor

 

Editorial decisions
Accepted: This decision implies that the article does not suffer content settings, only minor editorial changes.
Revisions required: This definition implies that minor adjustments are still needed for the item to go to the accepted.
Submit the new round: This definition implies that the article needs to be widely published in order that further evaluation is carried out by auditors. Usually this decision is made in cases where the article has merit due to experimental design but need to go a long way in writing in order to effectively convey quality with the findings of the study.
Reject: This decision applies to studies which reviewers do not check enough innovations in experimental design or justification for their realization. Taking this decision does not preclude a new article submission since the authors are able to contemplate the questions of the reviewers through a letter responding to all questions raised by the reviewers and the section editor. In the case of a new submission, the article is considered as a new submission.

 

To evaluate the paper, guest reviewer must access the Open Journal System (OJS) for scientific journals of the JRevista de Educação Física / Journal of Physical Education by connecting to the portal through your username / email and password (login) and access the Reviewer area. Further instructions are available in OJS/JPE portal.

 

Use the OJS/JPE to submit a manuscript review and the recommendation to editors. Use the tool to provide brief comments summarized confidential to the editor and general and specific comments to both authors and publisher. Please be as complete as possible, with commentary, identifying the page, paragraph and line number that refers to the review. Comments can be inserted directly into the OJS/JPE and / or loaded as a Microsoft Word document. Finally, please complete all the check boxes in the OJS/JPE to evaluate various aspects of the submitted work.

Guidelines for reviewers

  • Wix Facebook page
  • Wix Google+ page