Guidelines for Editors

The handling editor’s job

A handling editor takes a manuscript from screening to a decision: judging whether it belongs in the journal, finding reviewers who can assess it, weighing what they say against what the manuscript actually shows, and writing a decision the authors can act on.

The Editor-in-Chief holds final responsibility for what the journal publishes.

Screening

All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal’s scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review.

Screen for four things, in this order.

1. Scope. Assess the principal contribution to sport, exercise, physical activity, or related health and function. Studies may include inactive participants and findings may apply across sports. A sporting setting alone is insufficient; use the full scope.
2. Article type. Does the manuscript match the type it was submitted as, and is it structured accordingly?
3. Minimum requirements. Applicable ethics approval, exemption and consent or authorized waiver; registration for an interventional clinical trial; a data-availability statement; appropriate reporting guidance; and complete declarations.
4. Contribution. Does the manuscript add something a reader could use? A null or confirmatory result qualifies; a restatement of the literature does not.

Choosing and managing reviewers

• Match the subject, not the field. A manuscript on criteria-based return to sport needs a rehabilitation researcher, not a general sports physician.
• Two independent reviewers is the normal minimum for a manuscript that proceeds to external review. Where a manuscript turns on its statistics, add a reviewer for that.
• Check for conflicts before inviting. Recent co-authorship, the same institution, a shared grant, or a commercial relationship with a product under test.
• Send the abstract with the invitation so a reviewer can decline on scope or on a conflict before seeing the full text.
• When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
• Weigh the reports, do not count them. A reasoned minority report can outweigh two brief endorsements. Where reviewers disagree, read the manuscript again rather than seeking a casting vote.

Judgment in this field

Five things go wrong often enough in sports and exercise medicine to be worth checking deliberately.

Deciding

Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.

Write the decision so the authors can act on it: what the central problem is, what would resolve it, and which reviewer points are binding rather than advisory. Where reviewers contradict each other, say which line the authors should follow.

Conflicts and recusal

• Declare any competing interest on a manuscript and hand it to another editor.
• Take no part in assessing a manuscript you have authored. It is handled by another editor, and you are not told who.
• Treat every manuscript as confidential. Do not discuss it outside the review process or use anything in it before publication.
• Editors, like reviewers, must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with an assessment. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.

When something is wrong

• Suspected misconduct — plagiarism, duplicate submission, fabrication, image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts. Stop the review and refer it to the editorial office rather than deciding alone.
• Ethics concerns — missing approval, consent that does not cover what was done, identifiable material without consent. Ask for evidence before proceeding.
• An error in a published article. Assess whether it affects the conclusions: a correction if not, a retraction if so, an expression of concern while a serious question is unresolved.
• An appeal. Appeals are considered by an editor who did not take the original decision.

Joining the board

The journal is open to researchers and clinicians who publish in its core domains and can take on handling or review work. Write to the editorial office with a short statement of your subject area and a link to your publication record or ORCID iD.

Editorial policies in full · Reviewer guidelines · The editorial board · Write to the editorial office

Across the journal

Peer review

Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.

Journal pages