Peer-review process

Each article is independently reviewed regarding the novelty and relevance of the presented topic, the lack of plagiarism and self-plagiarism, the correctness of the collection and processing of experimental data, the analysis of the results obtained and the design of the material in accordance with the requirements. After reviewing the article, the author is informed of the result, i.e. information on acceptance (not acceptance, acceptance after adjustment) of the article.


This journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. 
To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity. To help with this preparation please ensure the following when submitting: Please submit the Title Page containing the Authors details and Blinded Manuscript with no author details as 2 separate files. This should include the title, authors' names and affiliations, and a complete address for the corresponding author including e-mail address. 

Preliminary evaluation. 

All manuscripts submitted for publication must go through the review process. All manuscripts are initially treated by editors to assess their compliance with the requirements of the journal and the subject. Incomplete packages or manuscripts not prepared in the advised style will be sent back to author(s) with suggestions for correction. The authors are notified with the reference number upon manuscript registration at the Editorial Office. 

The Editor-in-Chief or Editor reads every manuscript received and assigns a general priority level: 

(a) manuscripts sent to reviewers immediately; 
(b) manuscripts returned to authors with suggestions for the correction of data presentation; 
and (c) rejected manuscripts. 

Editors read the revised manuscript. If the manuscript is improved adequately, it is sent to two (or more) reviewers for review and to the Statistical Editor, if it contains numerical data. The preliminary evaluation process usually takes 3 weeks. 


The guidance for submitting, reviewing and publication of manuscripts submitted to the journal

The original manuscripts, which were previously unpublished or unaccepted by other publishers, are admitted for publication in the journal.

The editorial board reserves the right to cut and revise the article. Minor stylistic, nomenclature or formal revise is performed without author’s approval. If the article is revised by the author during the processing before publication, the submission date is the date of submission of the final text.

All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board undergo the multistep review.

The procedure of review of the manuscripts published in the journal

1. Each manuscript, submitted to the editorial board of the Journal obligatory undergoes the review procedure.

2. The scientific manuscript submitted to the editorial board of the Journal is reviewed by the Chief editor for accordance with the scope of the Journal and requirements for design of the article. In the case of accordance with indicated requirements the manuscript is sent to specialists for review.

3. The peer-review is performed by two members of the editorial board of the article with specialty closest to the scope of the article. The editorial board has the right to engage external reviewers (doctors of sciences or Phd including practitioners). The specialists affiliated to institutions were the work was performed are not engaged. All reviewers are recognized specialists in the scope of reviewed materials and have publications according to subject of the reviewed article for recent 3 years.

4. The editorial board of the Journal reserves the right to cut and revise submitted manuscripts under the form (internal review).

5. The review is performed in confidence. The reviewers are informed that manuscripts submitted to them are private property of authors and belong to privileged information. The reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the article for own needs. The reviewers must not give a part of the manuscript to other person for review without courtesy of the editorial board. The reviewers and also the staff of the editorial office have no right to use knowledge about the content of the article before its publication for own benefit. The manuscript is a private property of the author and belongs to information which is not for disclosure. The disclosure is possible only in the case of claim for unreliability or falsification of materials, in all other cases the non-disclosure is obligatory.

6. The deadlines of manuscript’s review:

6.1. The chief editor of the Journal reviews the manuscript submitted for publication for ten workdays beginning from the date of receiving the manuscript by editorial office.
6.2. Review of the manuscript by experts is performed for twenty workdays from the date of its submission from the Chief editor.
6.3. With the approval of the editorial board and reviewer, the review of the manuscript may be performed within the shorter time to include the manuscript into coming issue of the Journal.

7. The subject of review.

7.1. The review should contain the expert analysis of the manuscript according to following characteristics: accordance of the matter of the article with its title; the relevance of the research issue; scientific novelty of obtained results; reasonability of publication of the article according to previously published literature on the matter; presentation of the data (writing, style, used categories and constructions).
7.2. The reviewer may give recommendations to author and the Editorial board for improvement of the manuscript. Comments and suggestions of the reviewer should be objective and crucial, aimed for improvement of scientific and tutorial level of the manuscript.
7.3. In the conclusion the review should contain one of the followings decisions:
7.3.1. to recommend the manuscript for publication in public sources;
7.3.2. to recommend the manuscript for publication in public sources after technical revision;
7.3.3. to recommend the manuscript for publication in public sources after the changes suggested by the reviewers with following re-submission to the repeated review to the same reviewer;
7.3.4. to recommend to reject the publication of the manuscript in public sources due to nonconformance with requirements for scientific level of the Journal.

8. If even one reviewer makes decision from item 7.3.3 of the Procedure, the manuscript revised (rewritten) by author is re-submit to review. The authors should make all necessary corrections in the final version of the manuscript and to return corrected text and also its identical electronic version with initial version and cover letter-response for reviewer to the editorial board. In this case the date of submission to the editorial board is the date of returning of revised manuscript. If the reviewer makes the same decision for repeated review (impossibility to accept the paper without revision), the manuscript is considered to be rejected and is not the subject for review by the editorial board of the Journal anymore.

9. For overall negative assessment of the manuscript, the reviewer should make a very compelling argument for his conclusion.

10. The final conclusion on reasonability for publication is  made by the chief editor by virtue of expert reviews according to conformance of represented data with matter of the Journal, its scientific significance and relevance.

11. Author is informed about decision made for 5 workdays (by phone or e-mail). The editorial board sends the review of the manuscript to authors in electronic copy without signature and indication of surname, occupation and affiliation of reviewers in a mandatory manner. If the manuscript is rejected the copies of review and reasonable rejection are sent to author.

12. The editorial board does not retain rejected manuscripts.

13. The manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned. The manuscripts with negative response from the reviewer are not published and also are not returned to the author.

14. The originals of reviews are retained in the editorial office of the Journal for five years from date of its approval by the reviewer.

The order for manuscripts’ publication is determined according to editorial plan of journal issue.

Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be asked to complete a Conflict of interest declaration and author agreement form. An e-mail will be sent to the corresponding author confirming receipt of the manuscript together with a “Conflict of interest declaration and author agreement form”. 

All Open Access articles distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 

Conflict of interests. 

Authors should disclose at the time of submission any financial arrangement they may have. Such information will be held in confidence while the paper is under review and will not influence the editorial decision, but if the article is accepted for publication, the editors will usually discuss with the authors the manner in which such information is to be communicated to the reader. Because the essence of reviews and editorials is selection and interpretation of the literature, journal expects that authors of such articles will not have any financial interest in a company (or its competitor) that makes a product discussed in the article. Journal policy requires that reviewers, associate editors, editors reveal in a letter to the Editor-in-Chief any relationships that they have that could be construed as causing a conflict of interest with regard to a manuscript under review. The letter should include a statement of any financial relationships with commercial companies involved with a product under study. 

List of Reviewers:

The following scholars have generously reviewed manuscripts journal and deserve the thanks from all associated with the journal.

The following scholars have generously reviewed manuscripts journal
and deserve the thanks from all associated with the journal:

First name, second name



Mulik V.V.

Doctor of Sciences in Physical Education and Sport, professor, Kharkov State Academy of Physical Culture


Muszkieta Radosław

Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, professor, director, Institute of Physical Culture, Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz


Susanto, M. Or

Dr., Universitas Islam Negeri Sayyid Ali Rahmatullah Tulungagung


Mehmet Soyal

dr., School of Physical Education and Sports, İstanbul Esenyurt University


Skyriene Valentina

Professor, Lithuanian Sports University


George Karampatsos

dr., School of Physical Education and Sports Science, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens


Marisennayya Senapathy  Ph.D. Wolata Sodo University


Soltani H.


Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Islamic Azad University



Arfaoui A.

Royal Institute of Management Training; National Center of Sports Moulay Rachid


Amir Moghaddam

Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Islamic Azad University


Wondifrawu Workineh

Sport Science Department, Arba Minch University


Walery Zukow

Department of Spatial Management and Tourism, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Nicolaus Copernicus University


Mateusz Tomanek

Department of Business Excellence Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun


Skrypchenko I.T.

Water Sport Department, Prydniprovsk State Academy of Physical Culture and Sports





Tri Iswoyo

Sport Science Department, Surakarta Sebelas Maret University



The journal uses double-blind peer review.


to the article in the Journal "Health, Sport, Rehabilitation"

Article title:






Does the peer-reviewed article answer the subject of the magazine?



Are the problems discussed in the article new?



Does the article stimulate discussion of important issues or alternative points of view?



Is the relevance of the research tasks proven?



Is the methodology of research clear?



Are there any references to earlier studies aimed at solving a similar problem?



 Is the experiment sufficiently convincing and reliably described, the results of which serve as the basis for conclusions?



Is there a conclusion summarizing the results?



Are there any statements in the conclusion that do not follow from the text of the article?



Are the results clearly presented?



Does the article have sections of the text with the broken logic of reasoning?



Are there any ambiguous interpretations in the text of the article?



Are the conclusions correct / logically explained?



Does the reviewer recommend an article for publication? There are possible types of solutions:


• Accept unchanged;


• Accept after a minor revision;


• Adjust after a serious revision;


• Reject, as a rule, because it does not meet the criteria outlined above in terms of novelty, importance for the given branch of knowledge, interdisciplinary interest or a sound methodology.



Specific comments and suggestions of the Reviewer:


 Drawing up the items of the publication policy of the journal Editors followed the recommendations of:
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (download PDF); 
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).