The Journal of Teaching in Physical Education (JTPE) features peer-reviewed research articles based on classroom and laboratory studies, descriptive and survey studies, summary and review articles, and discussion of current topics of interest to physical educators at every level. JTPE is endorsed by the Curriculum and Instruction Academy of the National Association for Sport and Physical Education and the International Association for Physical Education in Higher Education.
The purpose of the Journal of Teaching in Physical Education is to communicate national and international research and stimulate discussion, study, and critique of teaching, teacher education, and curriculum as these fields relate to physical activity in schools, communities, higher education, and sport. The journal publishes original reports of empirical studies in physical education together with integrative reviews and analyses of educational and methodological issues in the field. Research using a variety of methodological approaches is acceptable for publication. Well-designed replication of previous research is also strongly encouraged. Brief research notes also will be reviewed for possible publication. The coeditors and editorial board encourage the submission of manuscripts that extend knowledge within the focus of the journal.
Specific questions about the appropriateness of any individual paper to enter the JTPE peer-review process should be directed to one of the coeditors. Except for occasional invited manuscripts, all published articles are refereed by members of the editorial board, or by other referees invited by the coeditors. The final decision on whether a paper merits publication is made by the coeditor coordinating the review process.
Bryan McCullick University of Georgia, USA
Heather Erwin University of Kentucky, USA
Michael W. Metzler (Founding Editor: 1981–1987)
Mark Freedman (1981–1984)
Thomas J. Templin (1984–1988)
David Griffey (1986–1989)
Thomas J. Martinek (1988–1991)
Judith Rink (1989–1992)
Stephen Silverman (1991–1994)
Mary O’Sullivan (1993–1996)
Nell Faucette (1994–1998)
Patt Dodds (1996–2000)
Hans van der Mars (1998–2002)
Deborah Tannehill (2000–2004)
Bonnie Tjeerdsma Blankenship (2002–2006)
Melinda Solmon (2004–2008)
Ron McBride (2006–2010)
Ping Xiang (2008–2012)
Pamela Hodges Kulinna (2010–2014)
Ben Dyson (2012–2016)
Weidong Li (2014-2018)
Mark Byra (2019-2020)
Senlin Chen Louisiana State University, USA
Matthew Curtner-Smith University of Alabama, USA
Sara Flory University of South Florida, USA
Xiaofen Deng Keating University of Texas at Austin, USA
K. Andrew R. Richards University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, USA
Kathleen Armour, University of Birmingham, UK
Suzan F. Ayers, Western Michigan University, USA
Laura Azzarito, Columbia University, USA
Dominique Banville, George Mason University, USA
Eve Bernstein, Queens College - CUNY, USA
Timothy A. Brusseau, Jr., University of Utah, USA
Antonio Calderón, University of Limerick, Ireland
Erin E. Centeio, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA
Weiyun Chen, University of Michigan, USA
Donetta Cothran, Indiana University, USA
Ben Dyson, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, USA
Eimear Enright, University of Queensland, Australia
Tim Fletcher, Brock University, Canada
Alex Garn, Louisiana State University, USA
Karen Gaudreault, University of New Mexico, USA
Barrie Gordon, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Stephen Harvey, Ohio University, USA
Peter A. Hastie, Auburn University, USA
Michael Hemphill, University of North Carolina-Greensboro, USA
Pamela Hodges Kulinna, Arizona State University, USA
Weidong Li, Ohio State University, USA
Ann MacPhail, University of Limerick, Ireland
Risto Marttinen, George Mason University, USA
Bo Shen, Wayne State University, USA
Oleg Sinelnikov, University of Alabama, USA
Melinda Solmon, Louisiana State University, USA
Haichun Sun, University of South Florida, USA
Sue Sutherland, The Ohio State University, USA
Tristan Wallhead, University of Wyoming, USA
Phillip Ward, The Ohio State University, USA
Collin Webster, University of South Carolina, USA
Ping Xiang, Texas A&M University, USA
Tao Zhang, University of North Texas, USA
Xihe Zhu, Old Dominion University, USA
Human Kinetics Staff
Christina Johnson, Editorial Assistant
Crystal Lasky Robinson, JournalsManaging Editor
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:
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.
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.
In preparing articles for submission to the Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, authors must follow the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed., 2020). Manuscript guidelines are listed next, followed by specific guidelines for Monographs and Research Notes.
All articles must include an abstract of 100–150 words typed on a separate page along with three to six key words not used in the title. When submitting, you will be prompted to fill in the abstract in a specific box. Please also include the abstract in the manuscript file that is uploaded. JTPE editorial personnel request that a structured abstract format is used that includes labeling the following sections within the abstract paragraph: Purpose, Method, Results, and Discussion/Conclusion. Non-traditional papers (e.g., photovoice, reviews, position papers) may use other labeling systems.
The entire manuscript must be double-spaced. Line numbers should be inserted, continuous throughout the text, to facilitate the review process.
Tables must be prepared using Microsoft Word’s table-formatting functions.
Manuscript length should not exceed 28 pages, including references, tables, and figures.
Special attention should be given to the accuracy of the references and APA style.
Figures must be crisp, clear, and properly labeled. Do not submit low-resolution electronic files.
Manuscripts should not be submitted to another journal at the same time.
All quantitative studies must report effect sizes.
To facilitate blind review, the first page of the manuscript should include only the title of the manuscript and the date of submission. The manuscript itself should contain no clues as to the author’s identity. A separate cover sheet with contact information is no longer required because the necessary identifying information is entered when registering with the online submission system.
Manuscripts will be acknowledged upon receipt and will be sent to two reviewers for blind review; the review process normally takes two to three months for an initial decision. Once the manuscript has been accepted, it will be published in the first available space after the final revision has been received. There are no page charges to authors.
Makel and Plucker (2014) proposed that replication is a powerful avenue to accumulate understanding by checking the validity of knowledge from previous research and enables questions concerning generalization across populations or contexts. Schmidt (2009) suggests that there are two primary forms of replication studies. The first includes "operational" replications that test the validity of the original data using similar procedures and research designs. The second are "constructive" replications, which attempt to replicate a research finding with different situations and different subjects, to determine if the basic findings of the original study can be applied to other participants and circumstances and is therefore linked to the wider notion of replication. In addition to the Manuscript Guidelines listed above, any Replication study submitted to JTPE must fall into one of these two categories.
Makel, M.C., & Plucker, J.A. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication of the education sciences. Educational Researcher, 43, 304–316.
Schmidt, S. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13, 90–100.
Guidelines for Monographs
Monograph proposals to JTPE should meet the following guidelines:
Manuscripts must use 12-point Times New Roman font (as per APA guidelines) and should be single-spaced, with length not exceeding 10 pages (including the overview but excluding the Appendix).
Proposals should start with an overview chapter (Chapter 1), which clearly identifies the theme, scope, and need for the monograph.
An overarching theoretical framework should inform the monograph. Individual chapters may also have additional/different theories that inform the work.
Proposals should provide the abstracts for all chapters (6-10 chapters). Each chapter’s abstract should consist of the following elements: Title, Background, Purpose, Method, Data Analysis, Results, and Discussion/ Conclusions.
Data should have already been collected at the time the proposal is submitted and results should be present in the proposal.
Proposals should conform to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed., 2020), except that the text should be single-spaced.
Guest editors should be identified in the Appendix and serve as liaisons between chapter lead authors and JTPE coeditors.
An Appendix should be submitted separately that provides the contact information of guest editors and the title of each of the chapters and its contributing authors with lead author contact information, along with an abbreviated CV (two pages) for each of the guest editors and lead authors.
Proposals are due by July 31 of each year.
All proposals are reviewed by a four-person review committee comprised of the two JTPE coeditors and two members of the JTPE editorial board.
The selection process is based on the following criteria: (a) relevance of topic and (2) quality of proposals, as determined by the four-person committee. Guest editors will be notified regarding the selection of monographs by September 15 of each year. If selected, guest editors must submit a complete monograph for further consideration in JTPE.
The complete monograph is due three months after notification of selection (by December 15). Once received, the monograph will be reviewed by the four-person review committee through the online review process, with reviews sent only to the monograph guest editors. Henceforth, the review process continues following the standard JTPE format until the monograph is considered ready for publication or the monograph is rejected.
Guidelines for Research Notes
Research Notes submitted to JTPE should meet the following guidelines:
Research Notes may consist of replication studies, data re-analyses studies, validation studies of existing instruments, and comments and dialogues on previously published papers.
Manuscripts should use 12-point Times New Roman font and should be double-spaced (as per APA guidelines), with length not exceeding 14 pages, including text, references, tables, and figures. Consecutive line numbers should be inserted throughout the text to facilitate the review process.
Submissions must include an abstract of 150 words or less.
Research Notes should conform to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed., 2020).
Review and Publishing Process
Research Notes follow the same review and publishing process as regular manuscripts.
Submitting a Manuscript
Manuscripts must be submitted through ScholarOne, the online submission system for the Journal of Teaching in Physical Education (see submission button at the top of this page). ScholarOne manages the electronic transfer of manuscripts throughout the article review process, providing systematic instructions and a user-friendly design. Please access the site and follow the directions for authors submitting manuscripts.
Any problems that might be encountered can be easily resolved by selecting “Help" in the upper-right corner of any ScholarOne screen. Authors of manuscripts accepted for publication must transfer copyright to Human Kinetics, Inc. This copyright agreement can be viewed by visiting the ScholarOne site and selecting "Instructions & Forms" in the upper-right corner.
Receiving a Decision
Effective July 1, 2019, JTPE has implemented new decision categories for submitted manuscripts. To review these categories, see the document below.
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!
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.
JTPE Editors and Reviewers Resource Center
Eligibility Criteria and Responsibilities of JTPE Co-Editors
JTPE co-editors are selected from the members of the editorial board. Upon selection, they serve as junior co-editor for a specified term of two years. Upon completion of this period, they serve as senior co-editor for another two-year term.
Eligibility for JTPE co-editor appointments is based on the following criteria:
1. Co-editor candidates have published three manuscripts in the last five years in tier one journals (requirements: one publication in JTPE and one first authorship publication).
2. Co-editor candidates have demonstrated high-quality reviews in a timely manner while on the JTPE editorial board (a minimum of six reviews per year during the three-year term).
3. Co-editor candidates have served as JTPE editorial board members for six years (i.e., two terms) before selection.
The JTPE co-editor responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Co-editors ensure the validity of the double-blinded review process.
2. Co-editors maintain confidentiality and objectivity regarding manuscripts and the review process.
3. The senior co-editor submits manuscripts to at least two reviewers expert in the specific area who can be objective and do not have conflicts of interest. In the case that the manuscript content or focus is inappropriate for JTPE, the coeditors contact the author(s) rather than sending it out for review.
4. Co-editors correspond with authors and reviewers.
5. Co-editors make decisions regarding acceptance/rejection and resubmission/rejection of manuscripts based on reviewers’ feedback/recommendations.
To review more information on the duties of editors, including ethical responsibilities, click here.
Nominations for the co-editor positions originate from existing editorial board members and are submitted in writing to the senior co-editor who is responsible for contacting the nominees for their curriculum vitae and letter of interest, as well as for making arrangements for the selection process.
Co-editors are selected by current co-editors from the pool of JTPE editorial board members who meet the eligibility criteria and are interested in the position. The co-editors’ selection is ratified by the majority vote of the JTPE editorial board.
Co-Editor Publication Process
In the case a co-editor submits a manuscript for publication to JTPE, the other co-editor assigns a guest co-editor to select reviewers and monitor the review process.
Editorial Board Members
Eligibility Criteria and Responsibilities for JTPE Editorial Board Membership
Editorial board members are appointed by the senior co-editor upon consensus of the editorial council (senior and junior co-editors).
Eligibility for new board member appointments is based on the following criteria:
1. Potential editorial board member has obtained a doctoral degree specializing in sport pedagogy or related fields at least five years before serving on the JTPE editorial board.
2. Potential editorial board member has published three manuscripts in the last five years in tier one journals (initial membership requirements: one publication in JTPE and one first authorship publication).
3. Potential editorial board member has served as a guest reviewer for JTPE for one year and completed an adequate number of high-quality, non-biased reviews.
4. Potential editorial board member has demonstrated expertise in areas needed on the board.
5. Potential editorial board member is committed to attending the annual JTPE editorial board meetings when possible and to contributing to the mission of JTPE.
The members of the JTPE editorial board are appointed for three years and are directly accountable to the editors of JTPE. In turn, the senior editor of JTPE is responsible to Human Kinetics, Inc. The JTPE editorial board members’ responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. JTPE editorial board members complete a minimum of six reviews per year in a timely manner.
2. JTPE editorial board members provide respectful and constructive reviews for authors that avoid hurtful language and contribute to providing high-quality papers.
3. JTPE editorial board members demonstrate confidentiality and objectivity regarding the manuscripts and the review process.
4. JTPE editorial board members participate in the evaluation of the quality and effectiveness of JTPE to help maintain high standards.
Editorial board membership nominations are requested from existing JTPE editorial board members. Board members whose term has been completed and who wish to continue on the board can also nominate themselves as a self-nomination (through a letter of intent only). Nominations should be submitted in writing (preferably via electronic mail) to the senior editor, who is responsible for arranging the review/selection process. Nominees are then asked to submit a curriculum vita to the senior editor, along with a statement expressing their interest in the position and explaining their suitability.
The co-editors of JTPE will consider nominees who meet the eligibility criteria and have provided requested materials as potential JTPE editorial board members. The JTPE editorial board can consist of up to 32 members at a time.
Renewal of JTPE Editorial Board Membership
The co-editors determine the renewal of JTPE editorial board membership. Board members, upon completion of their term of service, are invited to continue to serve on the board if they have successfully fulfilled all their responsibilities during their three-year term. This will be determined by the eligibility criteria and their ability to fulfill appropriate responsibilities for JTPE editorial board membership.
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). Co-editors make final decisions about the appropriateness of manuscripts.
II. Relevance/Significance of the Study:
1. Is there a theoretical framework and/or is the study and the related construct(s) situated in the existing literature?
2. Is the theoretical framework logically explained or are the constructs tied together to explain how the research project was conceived?
3. Is the rationale for the study clear?
4. 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?
5. 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?
6. Have the data been published elsewhere?
7. Are the interpretations based on valid, reliable, or trustworthy data/materials?
8. Has the work been sufficiently thorough to warrant publication?
9. What significant, unique, or valuable knowledge will readers learn from the study?
10. 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. Are the research questions specific enough so that the theoretical framework/construct logically leads to the selection of appropriate variables/phenomena for the investigation?
2. Is the research design explicitly explained?
3. Are participants clearly described?
4. Is information offered with regard to having obtained institutional approval and participants’ consent?
5. Are key characteristics of the participants provided?
6. Is the sequence of research procedure logical?
7. Are there sufficient data sources to address the research question(s)?
Guidelines for Quantitative Methods
1. Are variables operationally defined for data collection?
2. Is information about the validity and reliability of the measures reported?
3. Do the validity and reliability of the measures meet acceptable criteria?
4. Are control procedures described in experimental/quasi-experimental designs?
5. Are effective procedures used to minimize the threats to the validity and reliability of the measures?
6. Are statistical analyses compatible with or appropriate to the research questions?
7. Are advantages and disadvantages of using the analyses explained?
8. Were adequate assumptions for the statistical analyses examined and results reported?
9. Were descriptive statistics for the variables (dependent variables in particular) reported?
10. Are the parameters/indexes chosen to report results appropriate (especially in multivariate analyses)?
11. Were results for tests of statistical significance accompanied by effect size indices?
12. Are there any indications of calculation errors?
13. When using single-subject designs, were data paths interpreted appropriately according to accepted visual analysis tactics?
Guidelines for Qualitative Methods
1. Is the type of inquiry and its associated paradigm/perspective specified?
2. 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?
3. Is the description of context detailed so that readers can situate the study within its social and educational environment?
4. Are detailed descriptions of key informants provided?
5. Are data collection protocols described?
6. Are sufficient data sources used for an effective triangulation to make the case that the data are trustworthy and credible?
7. 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?
8. Are approaches to establishing trustworthiness appropriate?
9. Are data analysis protocols carefully described to show that the themes/grounded theories have been derived in a logical way?
IV. Discussion and Interpretation:
1. Has the discussion/interpretation of results been linked to the theoretical framework and/or constructs and rationale presented in the introduction?
2. To what extent do the findings make unique contributions to the body of knowledge?
3. Are interpretations of the results based on the data and related to the literature?
4. Are there any indications of over- or under-generalization of the results?
5. To what extent have the results answered the research questions (completely, partially, or not at all)?
6. 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?
7. Are practical implications of the findings presented when appropriate?
8. Are similarities and differences with previous findings noted and discussed?
9. Are unexpected results acknowledged and discussed?
V. Clarity of Information Presentation and Writing:
1. Does the writing allow a clear, accurate, and concise presentation of information? Are the sections coherently connected?
2. Does the writing avoid redundancy?
3. Are concepts clearly defined and explained when they first appear in the manuscript?
4. Has technical jargon been avoided or kept to a minimum?
5. Is the general arrangement of the sections logical?
6. Is it a finished piece of work?
7. Are there inappropriate or missing sections/headers?
8. Does the manuscript conform to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed., 2010)?
9. Does the abstract present all key components in the manuscript in a very concise manner?
10. Are tables and figures accurate, clear, and concise?
11. 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?
12. Is the reference list accurate and do citations in the manuscript accurately match those in the references section?
13. Is the tone of reporting academically appropriate?
14. Is an overly emotional tone avoided?
15. Is the length of the manuscript reasonable?
16. If longer than 28 pages (8.5 x 11, size 12 font), can any part be condensed or omitted without jeopardizing the significance of the manuscript?
B. Guidelines for the Review of Manuscripts Pertaining to Theoretical, Philosophical, and/or Applied Issues of Professional Practice
I. Contribution to the Body of Knowledge/Professional Practice:
1. Does the author address a significant issue that is relevant to the scope of the journal (teaching/learning in physical education)?
2. Is the most current relevant literature included in the review?
3. Are the arguments based on solid theoretical frameworks, philosophical foundations, and/or empirical evidence?
4. To what extent does the manuscript advance our understanding of the issue?
5. Has the work been sufficiently thorough to warrant publication?
6. Is the quality of the content sufficient to warrant publication?
II. Quality of Information Presentation:
1. Are themes and/or philosophical positions stated clearly?
2. Are appropriate transitions used between/among themes to build logical and compelling arguments?
3. Does the presentation help readers conceptualize issues and arguments effectively?
4. Is the manuscript logically organized to achieve a clearly stated purpose that is suited to this journal?
5. Is the information conceptually integrated and coherently presented?
III. Discussion or Interpretation of Ideas and Information:
1. 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)?
2. Is relevant literature adequately critiqued and integrated into the arguments?
3. Are the arguments based on well-reasoned thoughts, rather than emotions?
4. Does the reasoning throughout the manuscript seem to be sound?
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the arguments developed or the empirical evidence reviewed?
6. Are practical implications of the arguments and/or ideas emphasized?
C. Guidelines for Reviewing Manuscripts the Second or Third Time:
1. All major concerns by reviewers and editors should be addressed in the first revision of a manuscript.
2. 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.
3. Original reviewers should be employed in subsequent reviews unless the co-editor’s decision for the original manuscript is reject.
Guest reviewers must have an earned doctoral degree specializing in sport pedagogy or related fields. Doctoral students (in the third year of their programs or beyond) may also participate as a JTPE guest reviewer under the supervision of their doctoral mentors.