Please review the journal’s Submission Guidelines for authors.
Does the paper report important findings that add to the body of scientific knowledge and have useful practical application in sport?
Have the main findings or applications been published previously?
Is the purpose of the study stated clearly and an adequate justification for the study provided?
Is the experimental design sound and appropriate for the stated purpose of the study?
Are the methods and analysis appropriate and sufficiently clear to be readily repeated by other scientists?
Are the conclusions justified and logically consistent?
Are the practical applications of the study clear and concise?
Are the references to existing studies pertinent and complete?
Is the paper concise, consistent in format, and clearly written? Is the quality of the grammar, usage, and English at a high level?
Are all the figures and tables relevant? Are there unnecessary duplications of results among figures, tables, and the text?
Are the figures and tables properly prepared in accordance with the Submission Guidelines?
Do the title and abstract accurately reflect the contents and findings of the study?
Is the written text clear and unambiguous? Without rewriting the manuscript or imposing your own style, identify text that is verbose and/or ambiguous. Please identify text that should be expanded or condensed by specific reference to sentences and/or paragraph as appropriate.
Have the authors clearly identified the experimental design and statistical methods?
Are there any concerns with sampling bias or measurement bias?
Have the authors quantified measurement imprecision with details on the typical or technical error of measurement?
Has the sample variability been reported with standard deviation and uncertainty (or precision) of estimates indicated using confidence intervals?
Have magnitudes of effects been reported and interpreted with established criteria? Reporting the clinical or practical significance in a sport setting will help readers determine the real-world value or application of the main findings.
Is the use of standard and nonstandard statistical terms, abbreviations, and symbols defined appropriately and are the details of computer software packages cited?
Is there any notion of a reporting bias where underpowered studies and/or statistically nonsignificant results have been neglected or underemphasized? These results might have some practical (clinical) importance and could be useful for generating research questions and for researchers conducting meta-analyses.
The manuscript under review is a confidential document that should not be discussed or shown to others without the permission of the editor.
In the rare situation that you as the reviewer discover a potential conflict of interest in relation to the authors or content of the manuscript you have been invited to review, please contact the associate editor or editor as soon as possible.
Is there any evidence of plagiarism, duplicate submission to another journal, or excessive fragmentation of results to achieve multiple publication of manuscripts? Please contact the associate editor or editor if you have any ethical concerns in this regard.
Is there any suggestion of unethical practices with the experimental procedures involving the care, treatment, and management of human subjects?
Given that the authors will carefully read your comments, we request that you avoid harsh, abrasive, arrogant, or patronizing statements that might offend. Your comments and assessments should be logical, systematic, and written in moderate language. Comments specifically for the associate editors and/or editor can be written in more direct language. Reviewers should provide polite and constructive comments on the manuscript.
Please give specific rather than general comments. Comments and recommendations should be helpful for both the authors and the editorial team. Provide specific recommendations on how the manuscript could be improved, and where necessary refer to appropriate studies in the literature. Even if your recommendation is to reject the manuscript, it is still appropriate to provide recommendations on how it could be improved.
Please submit your reviewer report within the time limit specified on Manuscript Central. If your circumstances change and you cannot complete the review in time, please contact the editorial office as soon as possible.
Return of Reviewer’s Comments
Use Manuscript Central to give your final recommendation, and complete all check boxes to rate various aspects of the submitted manuscript.
Use Manuscript Central to provide brief confidential summary comments to the editor
Use Manuscript Central to provide general comments for the both authors and editor.
For specific comments, do one of the following:
- Write out in full identifying the page, paragraph, and line number together with your comment in the appropriate box in Manuscript Central.
- Use Microsoft Word’s Track Changes directly on the manuscript and then upload this as an attached file (if you choose this option you should remove any identifying user information in MS Word to maintain anonymity).