Peer Review Process

The Journal of Health and Recreation Physical Education (JHRPE) applies a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of every manuscript submitted for publication. All manuscripts undergo several stages of evaluation before a final editorial decision is made.

1. Initial Manuscript Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is first examined by the editorial team to determine whether it complies with the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, manuscript structure, formatting requirements, and publication ethics. The editorial team also checks the manuscript for plagiarism and significant similarities with previously published works.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to the authors for revision before proceeding to the peer review stage.

2. Editorial Assessment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor to assess their scientific relevance, originality, methodological quality, and suitability for JHRPE. The editor may reject manuscripts at this stage if they fall outside the journal's scope or do not meet the minimum academic standards.

3. Peer Review

JHRPE uses a double-blind peer review system. The identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

Each manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the submitted manuscript. Reviewers assess the manuscript based on several aspects, including:

  • originality and contribution to the field;
  • relevance to the journal's scope;
  • clarity and consistency of the research objectives;
  • appropriateness of the research methodology;
  • accuracy and adequacy of data analysis;
  • quality of results and discussion;
  • use and relevance of references;
  • clarity of conclusions;
  • quality of academic writing; and
  • compliance with research and publication ethics.

Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommendations to assist authors in improving the quality of their manuscripts.

4. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' recommendations and the editor's assessment, the manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept – the manuscript is accepted for publication without major revisions.
  2. Minor Revision – the manuscript requires limited revisions before publication.
  3. Major Revision – substantial revisions are required, and the revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.
  4. Reject and Resubmit – the manuscript requires extensive improvement before it can be considered for a new submission.
  5. Reject – the manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements.

The final decision rests with the editorial team and is not determined solely by the recommendation of an individual reviewer.

5. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' and editor's comments. Authors are expected to provide a clear response to each comment and indicate the changes made in the revised manuscript.

Revised manuscripts may be reviewed again by the original reviewers or by other qualified reviewers, depending on the extent of the required revisions.

6. Final Acceptance and Publication

After all required revisions have been satisfactorily completed, the editor issues a final acceptance decision. The accepted manuscript then proceeds to the copyediting, proofreading, layout, and publication stages.

The editorial team reserves the right to make necessary editorial adjustments to ensure consistency with the journal's publication standards without changing the scientific substance of the article.

7. Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

All manuscripts submitted to JHRPE are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, copy, use, or distribute any information contained in a manuscript under review.

Reviewers are also required to declare any potential conflict of interest and should decline the review if they are unable to provide an objective and independent assessment.

JHRPE is committed to maintaining a fair, objective, confidential, and ethical peer review process. The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, or other forms of publication misconduct.