For Editors and Reviewers

Things to Consider When Conducting the Peer Review:

Originality

Does the article fit the scope and mission of WSPAJ? Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the body of knowledge on women’s sport and physical activity? Does the article adhere to the journal’s standards? Is the research question an important one?

Structure and Content

Is the article clearly organized? Are all the key elements (where relevant) present: abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusions? Consider each element in turn:

  • Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
  • Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
  • Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and provide a rationale for the study. Does it explain how other findings are being challenged or extended? It should include the purpose, research questions, hypothesis(es) and an overview of the design or method.
  • Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data were collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
  • Results: This is where the author/s should explain in words what was discovered in the research. It should be clearly presented in a logical sequence. Were the appropriate analyses conducted? Are the statistics correct? If you are unsure about the analyses or statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report.
  • Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of knowledge forward?
  • Language: If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors that make it difficult to understand the study and finding, you do not need to list and correct the English. You might note the problem in your report, perhaps with a few examples, and please do bring this to the attention of the editor.
  • Tables and Figures: Do the figures and tables inform the reader, are they an important part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g. bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical.

 Communicating Your Report to the Editor

Once you have completed your evaluation of the article the next step is to write up your report. As a courtesy, let the editor know if it looks like you might miss your deadline.

Comments to the editor: In your comments to the editor, include the rationale for your recommendation and any comments that are not included in the author feedback.

Author feedback:  The report should contain the key elements of your review. Commentary should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name.  Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. Please explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments.

Do not include any statement about the manuscript’s likely acceptance/ rejection in the author feedback.