Peer Review Process

Papers submitted to Journal for Research in Arts and Sports Education are subject to rigorous peer review so as to ensure that the research published is 'good science'.

Before the beginning of the refereeing process, manuscripts are initially screened by the editors. At this stage manuscripts may be rejected directly by the editors if deemed to be beyond the scope of the journal, or scientifically or linguistically substandard.

Manuscripts that have successfully gone through the screening stage are then sent out for review electronically, and all correspondence takes place via e-mail. Although the peer-review process is accelerated by the use of electronic communication, traditional, high-quality peer-review standards are applied to all manuscripts submitted to the journal.

Each manuscript is sent to at least two referees. At least one of these are external to the editorial board. Journal for Research in Arts and Sports Education employs a 'double blind' review process: authors are not told who reviewed their paper, and reviewers are not told who wrote the paper.

Peer reviewers are asked to give their opinion on a number of issues pertinent to the scientific and formal aspects of the paper, and to evaluate papers on grounds of originality, quality of empirical work and argument, quality of research methodology or/and argumentation and quality of written language. In addition, non-discriminatory language is mandatory; sexist or racist terms should not be used, and their presence will result in immediate rejection by the editors. All relevant information will be forwarded to the author(s).

Reviewer recommendations: 

Peer reviewers will have the following possible options for each article:

  • Accept manuscript: acceptance as is.

  • Accept after revision: acceptance contingent upon minor revisions.

  • Revise and resubmit: the manuscript is in need of substantial revisions and another round of review.

  • Reject manuscript: the manuscript is substandard.

The final decision to accept or reject the paper and the recommendation to the author(s) rests with the individual editor who has been responsible for the evaluation of the paper.

When asking for revisions, reviewers have two possible goals: to ask authors to tighten their arguments based on existing data or to identify areas where more data are needed. Even formal revision may be required if the language or style is substandard. To facilitate rapid publication, authors are given a maximum of 3 months for revision. After 3 months, revised manuscripts will be considered new submissions.

Please be aware that all peer-review reports and related correspondence will be archived by the publisher, via the publishing platform. This documentation may be made available to a third party in the event of an audit.