|
Introduction
and Timescale
The Journal is a non-profit making scientific
electronic journal for experimental reports, case studies and
review articles in the fields of sports medicine and exercise
sciences. Only a minority of the papers submitted can be accepted
and it is necessary that a paper make a substantial contribution
to knowledge before it will be published. Essentially descriptive
studies or data reports that do not extend beyond a descriptive
level will not usually fulfil this requirement.
We particularly wish that this journal achieves a reputation
for the care, incisiveness and promptness of its Refereeing.
Please do not accept a paper for refereeing if you cannot commit
yourself to completing a review within four weeks of receiving
it. The deadline date for your report is contained in the enclosed
letter. Despite the obvious need to avoid unreasonable delay,
never sacrifice thoroughness for a swift response.
Please note that the Journal uses blind refereeing. Please send
only your review (preferably by Email or Fax). Keep the copy
of the manuscript, as you may be asked to review any revised
versions, until the final decision on the paper has been made.
Your
Report
On occasions it may not be necessary to dwell in detail in framing
a report. These are generally cases where the paper is so badly
prepared as to be virtually incomprehensible. There may also
be cases where the experimental design is irretrievably flawed.
Where a contribution is too slight for acceptance but does hold
some interest, it may be worth gently encouraging the author
to do further work towards a more substantial paper. Alternatively
it may be useful to report some material in a short paper.
Probably all manuscripts will be improved by some revision before
publication. Even when you wish to recommend acceptance there
will probably be various specific proposals that you can make
towards improving the paper.
Please
make sure that your critical comments and your recommendation
about publication agree: authors are sometimes puzzled to receive
largely friendly comments or apparently mild criticism associated
with a recommendation to reject. If you recommend rejection,
please try to indicate sufficient grounds. Rejection of a paper
is bound to disappoint the authors and no purpose is served
by added offence or personal abuse from an anonymous Referee.
Rejection is most tolerable when it is clear that the reviewers
have considered the paper with a thoroughness compatible with
the authors' investment of time in their work
It
is not necessary for Referees to give their attention to the
conformity of a paper with the Journal's conventions on style.
Nevertheless, minor alterations may be suggested by pencilled
annotation of the manuscript.
Please
type your comments on a sheet or sheets of paper with the title
of the paper and manuscript number at the top of each sheet.
You may differentiate in your report between General and Specific
Comments. Please point out in your report, which will be sent
to the authors, the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. You
should consider the overall assessment points on the summary
sheet before framing your report.
Please
do not make a recommendation as to acceptance or rejection within
your report. Instead, please make your summary recommendation
on the accompanying summary sheet, which should be completed
and returned with your report.
We
are very aware that Referees perform a vital service without
extrinsic reward: the least we can do is provide them with feedback
of the other Referees' reports. Clearly this material is provided
in strict confidence.
Please
consider the following questions before framing your written
report.
1. Does the paper sufficiently advance knowledge to merit
publication?
2. Is the content of the paper within the scope of this
journal?
3. Is the presentation sufficiently clear and precise?
4. Could the experiment(s) be repeated from the descriptions
and references given?
5. Are the illustrations necessary and adequate?
6. Are the aims clearly defined and followed?
7. Are the statistical analyses appropriate and clear?
8. Are the conclusions justified by the experimental
evidence?
9. Are the references adequate? (Use of Harvard Reference
System?)
10. Does the abstract accurately describe the work performed
and the conclusions drawn?
Modified from guidelines to referees of the Quarterly Journal
of Experimental Psychology by Leslie Henderson (July, 1983)
and Philip Smith (February, 1985).
|
