Peer Review Process

Journal Analysis Performance and Sport Technology (JAPST) implements a double-blind peer review system. Every manuscript submitted to JAPST will be evaluated by at least two reviewers with expertise relevant to the author’s field of study. The purpose of this process is to ensure the eligibility of the manuscript for publication, maintain quality standards, and provide scientific credibility for each publication.

The peer review process in JAPST proceeds through the following stages:

1. Submission of Manuscript
   Authors submit their manuscripts through the online system (Open Journal System – OJS). For convenience, JAPST also temporarily accepts submissions via email.

2. Editorial Office Assessment
   The editorial team checks whether the manuscript fits the focus and scope of the journal. The composition, structure, and formatting are evaluated according to the Author Guidelines. At this stage, the manuscript is also screened using Turnitin to check the similarity index and prevent plagiarism before further review.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief
   The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript for originality, novelty, and scientific significance. Manuscripts that do not meet the criteria may be rejected without entering the review stage.

4. Reviewer Invitation
   The handling editor invites reviewers who are considered suitable based on expertise, research interest, and absence of conflicts of interest. JAPST uses a double-blind review system, where the reviewer does not know the author’s identity, and vice versa, to ensure impartiality.

5. Response to Invitation
   Potential reviewers assess the invitation based on their expertise, availability, and conflict of interest considerations. They may accept or decline the invitation. In case of rejection, reviewers may suggest alternative reviewers.

6. Review Process
   Reviewers carefully read the manuscript, provide detailed comments and feedback, and give recommendations: accept, reject, or revise (minor or major).

7. Evaluation of Reviews
   The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor consider all review results before making a final decision. If there is a significant discrepancy between reviewers, an additional reviewer may be invited to provide another opinion.

8. Decision Communication
   The editor communicates the decision to the authors along with anonymous reviewer comments. At the same time, reviewers are notified of the outcome of their review.

9. Final Steps

   • If accepted: the manuscript proceeds to the copy-editing stage.

   • If revision is required: authors are asked to revise their manuscript according to reviewers’ feedback and resubmit it for further evaluation.

   • If rejected: authors still receive constructive comments for future improvement.

Once accepted, the articles will be published online and made freely accessible in downloadable PDF format (open access).