Journal for the Measurement of Physical Behaviour

Join ISMPB-click for membership details.

Mission

The Journal for the Measurement of Physical Behaviour (JMPB) publishes high quality research on fundamental measurement problems, and use and application of wearable technology to assess physical activity, sedentary behavior, movement disorders, and sleep. 

Scope

JMPB is a peer-reviewed journal focusing on the publication of innovative and impactful research on wearable monitors to assess such behaviors as physical activity, sedentary behavior, movement disorders, and sleep. This topic area is multidisciplinary and includes research from several disciplines such as kinesiology, psychology, computer science, engineering, statistics, public health, and clinical sciences.

Topic areas and types of papers may include novel methods for device calibration and validation, new sensor technology, analytic advances in measurement and interpretation, new outcomes for clinical studies, and applications of wearable monitors for assessing exposure and/or outcomes. Evidence-based papers leading to best practices for how objective monitoring should be used in research and clinical settings are also encouraged. Manuscripts validating self-report tools using objective measures may also be considered if innovative approaches are used for validation.

Submissions may include (but are not limited to) experimental studies, reviews, cross-sectional and longitudinal (cohort) studies, brief reports, technical notes, and evidence-based best practices recommendations. Software code for sensor data processing and extraction methods may be published in online appendices that are linked to papers. Detailed methods, where publishing the specific details may not be possible within the body of the paper, may also be published as online appendices linked to papers.

JMPB is a quarterly journal that published its first volume in 2018.

Ethics Policy

Duties of Editors-in-Chief

Editors-in-Chief are the stewards of journals. Most Editors-in-Chief provide direction for the journal and build a strong management team. They must consider and balance the interests of many constituents, including readers, authors, staff, publishers, and editorial board members. Editors-in-Chief have a responsibility to ensure an efficient, fair, and timely review process of manuscripts submitted for publication and to establish and maintain high standards of technical and professional quality.

Actions

An Editor-in-Chief's decision to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal. Consideration should be given without regard to race, religion, ethnic origin, gender, seniority, citizenship, professional association, institutional affiliation, or political philosophy of the author(s).

All original studies should be peer reviewed before publication, taking into full account possible bias due to related or conflicting interests. This requires that the Editor-in-Chief seek advice from Associate Editors or others who are experts in a specific area and will send manuscripts submitted for publication to reviewers chosen for their expertise and good judgment to referee the quality and reliability of manuscripts. Manuscripts may be rejected without review if considered inappropriate for the journal.

Editors-in-Chief must treat all submitted papers as confidential. The Editor-in-Chief and editorial staff shall disclose no information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than those from whom professional advice regarding the publication of the manuscript is sought. The Editors-in-Chief or editorial staff shall not release the names of reviewers.

Editors-in-Chief should consider manuscripts submitted for publication with all reasonable speed. Authors should be periodically informed of the status of the review process. In cases where reasonable speed cannot be accomplished because of unforeseen circumstances, the Editor-in-Chief has an obligation to withdraw himself/herself from the process in a timely manner to avoid unduly affecting the author’s pursuit of publication.

Where misconduct is suspected, the Editor-in-Chief must write to the authors first before contacting the head of the institution concerned.

Editors-in-Chief should ensure that the author submission guidelines for the journal specify that manuscripts must not be submitted to another journal at the same time. Guidelines should also outline the review process, including matters of confidentiality and time.

Editors-in-Chief transmit to Human Kinetics (specifically, the journal’s managing editor) the manuscripts accepted for publication approximately three months ahead of the publication date.

Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest arise when Editors-in-Chief have interests that are not fully apparent and that may influence their judgments on what is published.

Editors-in-Chief should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest, including, but not limited to, handling papers from present and former students, from colleagues with whom the Editor-in-Chief has recently collaborated, and from those in the same institution.

Editors-in-Chief should disclose relevant conflicts of interest (of their own or those of the teams, editorial boards, managers, or publishers) to their readers, authors, and reviewers.

Peer Review

Peer reviewers are external experts chosen by Editors-in-Chief to provide written opinions, with the aim of improving the works submitted for publication.

Suggestions from authors as to who might act as a reviewer are often useful, but there should be no obligation for Editors-in-Chief to use those suggested.

Editors-in-Chief and expert reviewers must maintain the duty of confidentiality in the assessment of a manuscript, and this extends to reviewers’ colleagues who give opinions on specific sections.

The submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied.

Editors-in-Chief should require that reviewers provide speedy, accurate, courteous, unbiased, and justifiable reports.

If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should write in confidence to the Editor-in-Chief.

Dealing With Misconduct

The general principle confirming misconduct is the intention to cause others to regard as true that which is not true. The examination of misconduct must, therefore, focus not only on the particular act or omission, but also on the intention of the researcher or author.

Editors-in-Chief should be alert to possible cases of plagiarism, duplication of previous published work, falsified data, misappropriation of intellectual property, duplicate submission of manuscripts, inappropriate attribution, or incorrect co-author listing.

In cases of other misconduct, such as redundant publication, deception over authorship, or failure to declare conflict of interest, Editors-in-Chief may judge what is necessary in regard to involving authors’ employers. Authors should be given the opportunity to respond to any charge of minor misconduct.

The following sanctions are ranked in approximate increasing order of severity:

  • A letter of explanation to the authors, where there appears to be a genuine misunderstanding of principles.
  • A letter of reprimand and warning as to future conduct.
  • A formal letter to the relevant head of the institution or funding body.
  • Refusal to accept future submissions from the individual, unit, or institution responsible for the misconduct, for a stated period.
  • Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper from the scientific literature, informing other editors and the indexing authorities.

Editor-in-Chief

Philippa Dall
Glasgow Caledonian University, UK

Editor-in-Chief Emerita

Patty Freedson (Founding Editor: 2018–2020)
University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA

Associate Editors

Matthew Ahmadi
University of Sydney, Australia

Soren Brage
University of Cambridge, UK

Lisa Cadmus-Bertram
University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA

Kimberley Clevenger
National Cancer Institute, USA

Dinesh John
Northeastern University, USA

Minsoo Kang
The University of Mississippi, USA

Joanne McVeigh
Curtin University, Australia

Alex Rowlands
University of Leicester, UK

Pedro Saint-Maurice
National Cancer Institute, USA

Jeffer Sasaki
Universidade Federal do Triangulo Mineiro, Brazil

John Sirard
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA

Ben Stansfield
Glasgow Caledonian University, UK

Tom Stewart
Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand

Andrea Wendt
Federal University of Pelotas, Brazil

Editorial Board

David Bassett, University of Tennessee Knoxville, USA

Matt Buman, Arizona State University, USA

Scott Crouter, University of Tennessee Knoxville, USA

Alan Donnelly, University of Limerick, Ireland

Malcolm Granat, Salford University, UK

Jorunn Helbostad, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway

Sarah Keadle, California Polytechnic State University, USA

Kate Lyden, KAL Research|Consulting LLC, USA

Ann Swartz, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, USA

Lindsay P. Toth, University of North Florida, USA

Rick Troiano, National Cancer Institute, USA

Greg Welk, Iowa State University, USA

Human Kinetics Staff
Doug Hoepker, Senior Journals Managing Editor
Christina Johnson, Editorial Assistant

Prior to submission, please carefully read and follow the submission guidelines detailed below. Authors must submit their manuscripts through the journal’s ScholarOne online submission system. To submit, click the button below:

Submit a Manuscript

Authorship Guidelines

The Journals Division at Human Kinetics adheres to the criteria for authorship as outlined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors*:

Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content. Authorship credit should be based only on substantial contributions to:

a. Conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data; and
b. Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and
c. Final approval of the version to be published.

Conditions a, b, and c must all be met. Individuals who do not meet the above criteria may be listed in the acknowledgments section of the manuscript. *Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. (1991). New England Journal of Medicine, 324, 424–428.

Open Access

Human Kinetics is pleased to allow our authors the option of having their articles published Open Access. In order for an article to be published Open Access, authors must complete and return the Request for Open Access form and provide payment for this option. To learn more and request Open Access, click here.

Manuscript Guidelines

The JMPB is a peer-reviewed journal focusing on the publication of innovative and impactful research on wearable monitors to assess such behaviours as physical activity, sedentary behaviour, movement disorders, and sleep. This topic area is multidisciplinary and includes research from several disciplines such as kinesiology, psychology, computer science, engineering, statistics, public health, and clinical sciences. 

Topic Areas and Types of Papers: We encourage submissions concerning novel methods for device calibration and validation, new sensor technology, analytic advances in measurement and interpretation, new outcomes for clinical studies, and applications of wearable monitors for assessing exposure and/or outcomes. Evidence-based papers leading to best practices for how objective monitoring should be used in research and clinical settings are also encouraged. Manuscripts validating self-report tools using objective measures may also be considered if innovative approaches are used for validation. 

Submissions may include (but are not limited to) experimental studies, reviews, cross-sectional and longitudinal (cohort) studies, brief reports, technical notes, and evidence-based best practices recommendations. Software code for sensor data processing and extraction methods may be published in online appendices that are linked to papers. Detailed methods, where publishing the specific details may not be possible within the body of the paper, may also be published as online appendices linked to papers.

Style

In preparing manuscripts for publication in JMPB, authors must closely follow the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed., 2020). Writing should be concise and direct. Manuscript length should not exceed 30 double spaced pages (including references). Avoid unnecessary jargon and abbreviations, but use an acronym or abbreviation if the spelled-out version of a term is cumbersome. Avoid abbreviations in the title. Formats of numbers and measurement units, and all other style matters, including capitalization, punctuation, references, and citations, must follow the Publication Manual of the APA.

Cover Letters

Upon submission, authors must upload a separate cover letter that lists (1) the title of the manuscript, (2) the date of submission, and (3) the full names of all the authors, their institutional or corporate affiliations, and their e-mail addresses. In addition to this essential information, the cover letter should be composed as described on pp. 230–231 of the Publication Manual of the APA, including clear statements pertaining to potential fragmented publication, authorship, and other ethical considerations.

Manuscript Format

The manuscript must be submitted as a Microsoft Word document. The manuscript should contain no clues as to author identity, such as acknowledgments, institutional information, and mention of a specific city. Thus, information that might identify the author(s) should be omitted or highlighted in black. The first page of the manuscript should include only the title of the manuscript and date of submission. All articles must include an abstract of no more than 250 words and three to six keywords chosen from terms not used in the manuscript title.

Figures and Photos

Artwork should be professional in appearance and have clean, crisp lines. Hand drawing and hand lettering are not acceptable. Shades of gray do not reproduce well and should not be used in charts and figures. Instead, stripe patterns, stippling, or solids (black or white) are good choices for shading. Line art should be saved at a resolution of 600 dots per inch (dpi). Photographic images can be submitted if they are saved in JPEG or TIFF format at a resolution of 300 dpi.

Tables

When tabular material is necessary, it should not duplicate the text. Tables must be formatted using Microsoft Word’s table-building functions. (Using spaces or tabs in your table creates problems when the table is typeset and may result in errors). Tables should be single-spaced on separate pages and include brief titles. Explanatory notes are to be presented in footnotes, below the table. The size and complexity of a table should be determined with consideration for its legibility and ability to fit the printed page.

Before Submitting

Please review the APA checklist for manuscript submission before submitting your manuscript.

Review

At least two reviewers are solicited for each manuscript. Manuscripts are evaluated via masked review. There are no page charges to authors. Manuscripts should not be submitted to another journal at the same time. 

Final Revisions

Authors of accepted papers must obtain and provide the editor all necessary permissions for reproduced figures, pictures, or other copyrighted work prior to publication. 

Copyright Transfer

Authors also will need to complete and sign a copyright agreement, transferring copyright to Human Kinetics, Inc. This copyright form can be viewed by visiting ScholarOne and selecting "Instructions & Forms" in the upper right corner. You do not need an account to access this information.

Individuals

Online Subscriptions

Individuals may purchase online-only subscriptions directly from this website. To order, click on an article and select the subscription option you desire for the journal of interest (individual or student, 1-year or 2-year), and then click Buy. Those purchasing student subscriptions must be prepared to provide proof of student status as a degree-seeking candidate at an accredited institution. Online-only subscriptions purchased via this website provide immediate access to all the journal's content, including all archives and Ahead of Print. Note that a subscription does not allow access to all the articles on this website, but only to those articles published in the journal you subscribe to. For step-by-step instructions to purchase online, click here.

Print + Online Subscriptions

Individuals wishing to purchase a subscription with a print component (print + online) must contact our customer service team directly to place the order. Click here to contact us!

Institutions

Institution subscriptions must be placed directly with our customer service team. To review format options and pricing, visit our Librarian Resource Center. To place your order, contact us

Duties of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers are external experts chosen by editors to provide written opinions, with the aim of improving the works submitted for publication. The service of peer reviewing is necessary to ensure the publication of quality, responsible research.

General Guidelines

First, always review JMPB's specific author submission guidelines. In general, the reviewer should evaluate the following:

  • Does the paper report important findings that add to the body of scientific knowledge and have useful practical application?
  • 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?

Presentation

In reviewing the presentation of the manuscript, appraise the following:

  • Is the paper concise, consistent in format, and clearly written? Is the quality of the grammar, usage, and English at a high level?
  • Does the typescript conform to requirements of JMPB's specified style?
  • 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 JMPB's 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.

Statistical Considerations

When reviewing a manuscript, evaluate the following statistical considerations as applicable:

  • 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?
  • Are precise P values shown? Indirect indications such as P < .05 or P = NS make it difficult for other researchers undertaking meta-analyses. Results should be reported so the number of digits is scientifically relevant. 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.

Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations

The manuscript under review is a confidential document that should not be discussed or shown to others without the permission of the JMPB editor. The submitted manuscript should not be retained nor copied. 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 JMPB editor as soon as possible. If a reviewer suspects misconduct, they should write in confidence to the JMPB editor.

Is there any evidence of plagiarism, duplicate submission to another journal, or excessive fragmentation of results to achieve multiple publication of manuscripts? Is there any suggestion of unethical practices with the experimental procedures involving the care, treatment, and management of human subjects? Please contact the JMPB editor if you have any ethical concerns in this regard.

Your anonymity as a reviewer will be preserved, and you are asked not to identify yourself to the authors without the permission of the JMPB editor. You can elect to be identified as the reviewer when your comments are posted online in the ScholarOne system.

Formulating Feedback

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 JMPB 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.

Returning Your Comments

Please submit your reviewer report within the specified time limit. If your circumstances change and you cannot complete the review in time, please contact the JMPB editorial office as soon as possible.

Use ScholarOne to give your final recommendation, and complete all check boxes to rate various aspects of the submitted manuscript. Also, use ScholarOne to provide brief, confidential summary comments to the associate editor, and to provide general comments for the author(s). For specific comments, do one of the following:

  • Identify the page, paragraph, and line number together with your comment in the appropriate box in ScholarOne.
  • 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).

Follow @JMPBjournal  

 CSSM call for papers

Most Popular