All papers, including those invited by the Editor, are subject to peer review. Manuscripts are reviewed by at least 3 external experts and editors. Korean Journal of Sport Science’s average turnaround time from submission to decision is 6 weeks. The editor is responsible for the final decision whether the manuscript is accepted or rejected.

Double blind peer review

Korean Journal of Sport Science adopts double blind review, which means that the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and vice versa.

Peer Review Process

1) Submission

All manuscripts should be submitted via e-submission system available from: https://kjss.sports.re.kr/submit If any authors have difficulty in submitting via e-submission system, please send a manuscript to publ@kspo.or.kr by the corresponding author.

2) Peer review process

Korean Journal of Sport Science reviews all manuscripts received. A manuscript is first reviewed for its format and adherence to the aims and scope of the journal. If the manuscript meets these two criteria, it is checked for plagiarism or duplicate publication with Similarity Check. After confirming its result, it is dispatched to three investigators in the field with relevant knowledge. Assuming the manuscript is sent to reviewers, Korean Journal of Sport Science waits to receive opinions from at least three reviewers. In addition, if deemed necessary, a review of statistics may be requested. The authors’ names and affiliations are removed during peer review (double-blind peer review). The acceptance criteria for all papers are based on the quality and originality of the research and its scientific significance. Acceptance of the manuscript is decided based on the critiques and recommended decision of the reviewers. An initial decision will normally be made within 4 weeks of receipt of a manuscript, and the reviewers’ comments are sent to the corresponding author by e-mail. The corresponding author must indicate the alterations that have been made in response to the reviewers’ comments item by item. Failure to resubmit the revised manuscript within 4 weeks of the editorial decision is regarded as a withdrawal. If further revision period is required, author should contact editorial office through form mail available from: https://kjss.sports.re.kr/submit. A final decision on acceptance/rejection for publication is forwarded to the corresponding author from the editor.

3) Peer review process for handling submissions from editors, employees, or members of the editorial board

Korean Journal of Sport Science operates a rigorous and transparent peer-review process that aims to maximize quality. Peer-review is handled by researchers and scholars.
We believe that peer-review needs to be efficient, rigorous, and fair for everyone involved.

Peer-review is a single and double-blind assessment with at least three independent reviewers, followed by a final acceptance/rejection decision by the Editor-in-Chief, or another academic editor approved by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process, including acceptance decisions, approval of Guest Editors and Special Issue topics, and appointing new Editorial Board members.
A summary of the editorial process is given in the flowchart below.
From submission to final decision or publication, one dedicated editorial staff member coordinates the review process and serves as the main point of contact for authors, academic editors and reviewers.

Pre-Check
When a manuscript is submitted following things are done promptly-

i. How suitable is the manuscript for the journal?
ii. Asses the quality of research and ethical standards.
iii. Assess if the journal qualifies for further review.
The managing Editor of the Journal will be responsible for these initial pre-check

Peer-Review
The process is double-blind for most articles (original articles and review articles), meaning that the author does not know the identity of the reviewer, but the reviewer knows the identity of the author.

Korean Journal of Sport Science review process

Some invited review and editorials operate single-blind peer-review, where in addition to the author not knowing the identity of the reviewer, the reviewer is unaware of the author’s identity.
At least three review reports are collected for each submitted article. Suggestions of reviewers can be made by the academic editor during pre-check. Alternatively, the editorial staff will use qualified Editorial Board members, qualified reviewers from our database, or new reviewers identified by web searches for related articles.
Authors can recommend potential reviewers. Our editorial staff ensure that there are no potential conflicts of interest and will not consider those with competing interests. Authors can also enter the names of potential peer-reviewers they wish to exclude from consideration in the peer-review of their manuscript, during the initial submission of the manuscript. The editorial team will respect these requests as long as they do not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of the submission.

The following checks are applied to all reviewers:
That they hold no conflicts of interest with the authors, including if they have published together in the last five years;
That they hold a PhD (exceptions are made in some fields, e.g., medicine);
They must have recent publications in the field of the submitted paper;
Reviewers who accept to review a manuscript are expected to:
Have the necessary expertise to judge manuscript quality;
Provide quality review reports and remain responsive throughout peer-review;
Maintain standards of professionalism and ethics.

To assist academic editors, the editorial staff handle all communication with reviewers, authors, and the external editor. Academic editors can check the status of manuscripts and the identity of reviewers at any time, and are able to discuss manuscript review at any stage with the editorial and academic staff.

Revision
Editor decision

The acceptance decision is taken by academic Editor (the Editor-in-Chief, Associate editor, Guest editor or another suitable Editorial Board member). The editors are obligated to check the suitability of selected reviewers, adequacy of reviewer comments and author response and finally, overall scientific quality of the paper before making any decisions.
The objective of Korean Journal of Sport Science is to publish scientifically correct manuscripts and not to artificially increase journal rejection rates, allowing the reader communities to define the impact.

Submission Turnaround Time
In-house review: 1-4 weeks
External peer review: 1-2 month
Online publication ahead of print: within 0.5-1 month after being accepted Formal publication: within 1-4 months after being accepted

Reviewer instruction

Instructions for Reviewers

This is a guideline for reviewers who voluntarily participate in peer review process of the journal. All of the journal's contents including commissioned manuscripts are subject to peer-review.

Double blind peer review

Korean Journal of Sport Science adopts double blind review, which means that the reviewers and authors cannot identify each others’ information.

Role of reviewers

Peer reviewer’s role is to advise editors on individual manuscript to revise, accept, or reject. Judgments should be objective and comments should be lucidly described. Scientific soundness is the most important value of the journal; therefore, logic and statistical analysis should be considered meticulously. The use of reporting guideline is recommended for review. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest. Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited. Reviewed articles are managed confidentially. The editorial office is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript based on the reviewers' recommendation.

How to write review comments

After entering the e-submission system with ID and password, please download PDF files and supplementary files. It is not necessary to comment on the style and format, but just concentrate on the scientific soundness and logical interpretation of the results.

• Comment to authors: Summarize the whole content of manuscript in one sentence. Please make a specific comment according to the order of each section of the manuscript. Page mark is good to trace the review comment. The reviewer’s recommendation on acceptance should not be stated at the comment to authors. Consider if the peer review opinion may increase the quality of manuscript or further research by author.

• Comment to editor: Both the strength and shortness of the manuscript are recommended to be added. The reviewer’s recommendation on acceptance may be added here including special opinion to editor.

Ethical guideline for reviewers

• 1. Any information acquired during the review process is confidential.
• 2. Please inform the editor on any conflicts of interest as follows:
  Reviewer is a competitor.
  Reviewer may have an antipathy with the author(s).
  Reviewer may profit financially from the work.
• In case of any of the above conflicts of interest, the reviewer should decline to review. If the reviewer still wishes to review, the conflicts of interest should be specifically disclosed. A history of previous collaboration with the authors or any intimate relationship with the authors does not prohibit the review.
• 3. Reviewer should not use any material or data originated from the manuscript in review; however, it is possible to use open data of the manuscript after publication.

Post-review work by the editorial office

Review opinions and decisions may be analyzed by the editorial office without identifying the reviewer.