A. Guidelines for the Review of Research-Based Manuscripts
I. Appropriateness of Manuscript for JTPE:
The reviewer should comment on the appropriateness of the manuscript (refer to editorial policy of JTPE) based on the guidelines below (when they apply). Coeditors make final decisions about the appropriateness of manuscripts.
II. Relevance/Significance of the Study:
- Is there a theoretical framework and/or is the study and the related constructs situated in the existing literature?
- Is the theoretical framework logically explained or are the constructs tied together to explain how the research project was conceived?
- Is the rationale for the study clear?
- Does the literature review provide the most relevant and current scholarship on the topic that enriches an understanding of the theoretical framework or related constructs?
- Are the purpose and the research questions derived from the literature review and are they consistent with the theoretical framework and/or the related constructs and rationale presented in the introduction?
- Have the data been published elsewhere?
- Are the interpretations based on valid, reliable, or trustworthy data/materials?
- Has the work been sufficiently thorough to warrant publication?
- What significant, unique, or valuable knowledge will readers learn from the study?
- Overall, does the study add new knowledge and/or make a significant and/or a unique contribution to the existing literature base?
III. Methodology and Presentation of Results:
1. General Guidelines:
- Are the research questions specific enough so that the theoretical framework/ construct logically leads to the selection of appropriate variables/phenomena for the investigation?
- Is the research design explicitly explained?
- Are participants clearly described?
- Is information offered with regard to having obtained institutional approval and participants’ consent?
- Are key characteristics of the participants provided?
- Is the sequence of research procedure logical?
- Are there sufficient data sources to address the research question(s)?
2. Guidelines for Quantitative Methods:
- Are variables operationally defined for data collection?
- Is information about the validity and reliability of the measures reported?
- Do the validity and reliability of the measures meet acceptable criteria?
- Are control procedures described in experimental/quasi-experimental designs?
- Are effective procedures used to minimize the threats to the validity and reliability of the measures?
- Are statistical analyses compatible with or appropriate to the research questions?
- Are advantages and disadvantages of using the analyses explained?
- Were adequate assumptions for the statistical analyses examined and results reported?
- Were descriptive statistics for the variables (dependent variables, in particular) reported?
- Are the parameters/indexes chosen to report results appropriate (especially in multivariate analyses)?
- Were results for tests of statistical significance accompanied by effect size indices?
- Are there any indications of calculation errors?
- When using single subject designs, were data paths interpreted appropriately according to accepted visual analysis tactics?
3. Guidelines for Qualitative Methods:
- Is the type of inquiry and its associated paradigm/perspective specified?
- Does the author reveal sufficient personal/professional subjectivity for readers to assess the degree of the researcher’s role in the study and influence on the data presented?
- Is the description of context detailed so that readers can situate the study within its social and educational environment?
- Are detailed descriptions of key informants provided?
- Are data collection protocols described?
- Are sufficient data sources used for an effective triangulation to make the case that the data are trustworthy and credible?
- If limited data sources were used, were additional efforts made to gather sufficient in-depth information from the sources to address the research questions adequately?
- Are approaches to establishing trustworthiness appropriate?
- Are data analysis protocols carefully described to show that the themes/grounded theories have been derived in a logical way?
IV. Discussion and Interpretation:
- Has the discussion/interpretation of results been linked to the theoretical framework and/or constructs and rationale presented in the introduction?
- To what extent do the findings make unique contributions to the body of knowledge?
- Are interpretations of the results based on the data and related to the literature?
- Are there any indications of over- or under-generalization of the results?
- To what extent have the results answered the research questions (completely, partially, or not at all)?
- If there are any critical limitations of the study in any section (e.g., theoretical foundation, methodology, results, and-or discussion), how well has the author addressed them?
- Are practical implications of the findings presented when appropriate?
- Are similarities and differences with previous findings noted and discussed?
- Are unexpected results acknowledged and discussed?
V. Clarity of Information Presentation and Writing:
- Does the writing allow a clear, accurate, and concise presentation of information? Are the sections coherently connected?
- Does the writing avoid redundancy?
- Are concepts clearly defined and explained when they first appear in the manuscript?
- Has technical jargon been avoided or kept to a minimum?
- Is the general arrangement of the sections logical?
- Is it a finished piece of work?
- Are there inappropriate or missing sections/headers?
- Does the manuscript conform to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed., 2010)?
- Does the abstract present all key components in the manuscript in a very concise manner?
- Are tables and figures accurate, clear, and concise?
- Do tables and figures present necessary information that contributes to the understanding of the text, rather than redundant information, which duplicates what is already in the text?
- Is the reference list accurate and do citations in the manuscript accurately match with those in the references section?
- Is the tone of reporting academically appropriate?
- Is an overly emotional tone avoided?
- Is the length of the manuscript reasonable?
- If longer than twenty-eight 8 1/2 x 11 pages (12 font size), can any part be condensed or omitted without jeopardizing the significance of the manuscript?
B. Guidelines for the Review of Manuscripts That Pertain to Theoretical, Philosophical, and/or Applied Issues of Professional Practice
I. Contribution to the Body of Knowledge/Professional Practice:
- Does the author address a significant issue that is relevant to the scope of the journal (teaching/ learning in Physical Education)?
- Is the most current relevant literature included in the review?
- Are the arguments based on solid theoretical frameworks, philosophical foundations, and/or empirical evidence?
- To what extent does the manuscript advance our understanding of the issue?
- Has the work been sufficiently thorough to warrant publication?
- Is the quality of the content sufficient to warrant publication?
II. Quality of Information Presentation:
- Are themes and/or philosophical positions stated clearly?
- Are appropriate transitions used between/among themes to build logical and compelling arguments?
- Does the presentation help readers conceptualize issues and arguments effectively?
- Is the manuscript logically organized to achieve a clearly stated purpose that is suited to this journal?
- Is the information conceptually integrated and coherently presented?
III. Discussion or Interpretation of Ideas and Information:
- Has the author built constructive arguments that advance theory, knowledge, and/or applications related to the scope of the journal (teaching/ learning in Physical Education)?
- Is relevant literature adequately critiqued and integrated into the arguments?
- Are the arguments based on well-reasoned thoughts, rather than emotions?
- Does the reasoning throughout the manuscript seem to be sound?
- Are the conclusions consistent with the arguments developed or the empirical evidence reviewed?
- Are practical implications of the arguments and/or ideas emphasized?
C. Guidelines for Reviewing Manuscripts the second or third time:
- All major concerns by reviewers and editors should be addressed in the first revision of a manuscript.
- New major revisions should not be requested during the second or third revision of a manuscript unless a major change (e.g., new theoretical framework or revised analyses) requires further recommendations for changes.
- Original reviewers should be employed in subsequent reviews unless the coeditor’s decision for the original manuscript is reject.
