The articles that are published in the Discobolul – Physical Education, Sports and Kinetotherapy Journal follow a double blind peer-review procedure.

The manuscript is submitted by author(s) in English language using the Open Journal Systems (OJS).

• Received manuscripts are first examined by Editorial Board members (by Editor-in-chief or by the Deputy Editor-in-chief) according to Discobolul – Physical Education, Sports and Kinetotherapy Journal ‘technical’ requirements (https://discobolulunefs.ro/media/Instructions_for_Authors_2020.pdf). Incomplete manuscripts, if English is not of good standard, or papers that are not respecting the available Template (including information considering the preparation of the manuscript) will be returned to author(s) with suggestions for correction. After the paper is improved adequately, the manuscript receives a unique identification code which will be used in the following discussions related to the manuscript. At this stage the article is sent to two reviewers for scientific evaluation.
• Each reviewer writes the Reviewer’s Report where he/she mentions one of the following:

- Accepted without any revisions - the journal will publish the paper in its original form;

- Accepted with minor changes - in this case the paper cannot be published, for the moment; the authors have to make necessary corrections;

- Accepted with major revisions (major flows are identified by the reviewers);

- Rejected - the research procedure, statistics, or figures are so poor that the merit of the manuscript cannot be assessed, the manuscript is just a small extension of a different article (often from the same authors), or the paper contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized.

• After the two independent reviewers endorsed publication, one of the Reviewing Editors reads, also, the manuscript, examining, mainly, the descriptive and inferential statistics and the research procedure.
• The Proofreading Editor takes a critical look before publication. At this stage, also, if the Proofreading Editor considers that English is not of good standard, the manuscript can return to authors with suggestions for corrections.    

 

       If reviewers appear to differ in their opinion, the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-chief together with a Reviewing Editor will assess the article, will consider all comments and take the final decision.         

       It should be noted that the author(s) must send the revised version of the article in 10 days’ time since he/she received the Reviewers’ Report or the Editorial Board’s feed-back. Then, the Editorial Board sends the revised version of the paper to the reviewer(s). This process lasts until the reviewer(s) endorses (or rejects) the manuscript.  

Overview

Editors of academic journals in sports science are entrusted with upholding the integrity, quality, and ethical standards of scholarly publishing. Their responsibilities are guided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.

Editors play a pivotal role in the academic publishing process, ensuring that the content published is of high quality, ethically sound, and contributes meaningfully to the field. Their duties encompass manuscript evaluation, peer review management, ethical oversight, and strategic development of the journal.

 

Key Responsibilities

 

1. Editorial Oversight and Decision-Making

Manuscript Evaluation: Assess submissions for relevance, originality, and contribution to the field.

Peer Review Management: Ensure a fair, unbiased, and timely review process.

Final Decisions: Make publication decisions based on the manuscript's merit and reviewer feedback.

2. Ethical Standards and Integrity

Adherence to Ethical Guidelines: Follow COPE's Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines to handle ethical issues such as plagiarism, data fabrication, and conflicts of interest.

Confidentiality: Maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and the identities of reviewers.

3. Journal Development and Strategy

Scope and Content: Ensure the journal's content reflects current developments and emerging areas in sports science.

Editorial Board Management: Select and engage with the editorial board to guide the journal's direction.

Promotion: Promote the journal to attract high-quality submissions and increase its visibility in the academic community.

 

Additional information

Editors of sports science journals, guided by COPE policies, are responsible for ensuring the publication of high-quality and ethically sound research. Their duties encompass overseeing the peer review process, maintaining ethical standards, developing the journal's scope, and collaborating with the authors, reviewers and journal editors to uphold the integrity of the academic record.

 

Maintain Confidentiality

Treat submitted manuscripts as confidential intellectual property.

Do not disclose content, data, or results outside the peer review process.

Avoid using unpublished findings for personal research or discussion.

Ensure Field-Appropriate Scientific Rigor

Study Design: Critically evaluate whether the study design aligns with the research question (e.g., crossover trials, randomized controlled trials, longitudinal training interventions etc.).

Are training protocols, control conditions, and athlete selection appropriate?

Population Specificity: Check that participants (e.g., elite athletes, recreational subjects) are clearly defined and relevant to the research scope (check the number, age, gender distribution, competitive experience, the club to which the athletes are affiliated etc).

Ecological Validity: Consider whether experimental conditions realistically reflect sport-specific contexts.

Evaluate Methods and Measurement Tools

Assess whether instruments used (e.g., VO₂max tests, motion capture, force plates, psychological scales) are validated, reliable, and appropriate.

Examine the detail and transparency of protocols (e.g., warm-up, rest periods, environment control).

Flag inadequate reporting of operational definitions or outcome measures.

Scrutinize Statistical Analysis

Confirm appropriateness of statistical tests for study design (e.g., ANOVA, repeated measures, effect sizes etc.).

Check if assumptions/ conditions (normality, homogeneity) were verified.

Ensure use of confidence intervals, practical significance, and effect sizes rather than relying solely on p-values.

 

 

Review Interpretation and Theoretical Framing

Are findings interpreted in context with existing sport science theories (e.g., motor learning, periodization models, overtraining syndrome)?

Does the discussion involve the study's limitations and avoids overgeneralizing?

Is there a logical link between results and practical implications for coaches, trainers, athletes and other specialists?

Does the Discussion critically interpret the authors' own results in light of current scientific literature, and are relevant references cited appropriately?

Assess Novelty and Relevance

Judge whether the manuscript offers a novel insight into athletic performance, injury prevention, sports psychology, biomechanics, or related subfields.

Ensure the findings are transferable to real-world sport or training settings.

Promote Ethical Compliance

Confirm that ethical approval and informed written consent are stated, especially for invasive protocols or vulnerable populations (e.g., youth athletes).

Verify adherence to international standards like the Declaration of Helsinki or WADA code (when applicable).

Review the Quality of Writing and Data Presentation

Check clarity of figures, tables, and units (e.g., watts, m·s⁻¹, mmol·L⁻¹).

Ensure that all tables and figures are appropriately referenced and integrated into the narrative of the text.

Ensure terminology follows field conventions (e.g., use of "training load," "rate of perceived exertion").

Suggest restructuring if data presentation obscures key insights.

Identify and Report Ethical and Scientific Misconduct

Flag duplicated publication, text recycling, data fabrication, or ghost authorship.

Notify the editor confidentially of any suspicions.

Deliver Constructive, Detailed Feedback

Provide point-by-point critique across:

•  
  • Introduction: clarity of research gap.
  • Methods: reproducibility and validity.
  • Results: transparency and completeness.
  • Discussion: logic, contextualization, practical relevance.

Offer actionable suggestions for improvement.

Respect Journal Scope and Audience

Recommend rejection if the manuscript:

•  
  • Does not fit within the journal's aims and scope.
  • Targets an audience too narrow or lacks applied value.

Respect Deadlines and Anonymity

Respond promptly to review invitations.

Deliver reviews by the deadline or notify editors early of delays.

Adhere to the journal's anonymity policy (e.g., double-blind peer review).

Compliance with Journal Template and Formatting Guidelines

Ensure that the manuscript follows the journal's required structure and formatting style (e.g., IMRaD format: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussions/ Conclusion).

Letter	Section	Purpose
I	Introduction	Describes the research problem, background, and objectives. Answers: Why was this study done?
M	Methods	Explains how the study was conducted. Includes design, participants, procedures, and analysis. Answers: How was it done?
R	Results	Presents the findings, often with tables or figures. Answers: What was found?
D	Discussion	Interprets the results in context of existing literature, limitations, and implications. Answers: What do the results mean?

COPE – Complaints and Appeals

https://publicationethics.org/news-opinion/complaints-and-appeals

 Step 1. Acknowledge the Complaint

Action: Acknowledge receipt of the complaint within 5 business days.

Responsibility: Editorial Office/ Managing Editor.

Details to Include:

-          Confirmation of receipt (from journal's email address).

-          Expected timeline for investigation.

-          Contact point for follow-up.

Step 2. Preliminary Review

Action: Assess the nature and scope of the complaint.

Determine:

-          Is the complaint about an editorial decision, staff conduct, publication ethics, or review process?

-          Does it warrant a full investigation?

Outcome:

-          Escalate valid concerns to the appropriate authority (e.g. Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor or other Editors of the journal).

-          Inform complainant if no grounds are found (with justification).

Step 3. Internal Investigation

Action: Conduct a formal review.

Methods:

-   Interview relevant staff or editors.

-   Review submission and editorial history logs.

-   Assess COPE/ ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) policy adherence.

Responsibility: Typically led by Deputy Editor, Editorial board members or a designated Ethics Committee.

Step 4. Decision and Action

Timeframe: Within 4–6 weeks of receiving the complaint.

Outcomes:

-          Substantiated Complaint:

• Apology to complainant.
• Rectify procedural error.
• Retract or correct publication (if needed).
• Training or disciplinary action (in severe cases).

-          Unsubstantiated Complaint:

• Provide rationale and evidence behind the decision.

Communication: Send formal written decision to the complainant.

Step 5. Record-Keeping

Maintain confidential documentation of:

•  
  • Complaint content.
  • Investigation steps and findings.
  • Final decision and communication log.

Duration: Retain for at least 5 years (as per institutional or legal requirements).

Step 6. Escalation Protocol

Only one appeal per submission is allowed.

If complainant is dissatisfied, they may request external mediation via COPE.