Peer Review Process

The editorial process consists of three stages.

Stages of manuscript development

  1. Pre-screening (Initial check): The editorial board checks the article for compliance with the "Martial arts" profile, compliance with technical requirements, and the level of uniqueness of the text (plagiarism) within 3–5 days.
  2. Appointment of experts:  The article is sent to at least  two reviewers - specialists in the relevant field who have scientific publications on this topic in the last 3 years.
  3. Expert evaluation:  Reviewers evaluate scientific novelty, methodology (correctness of athlete sampling, statistics), and validity of conclusions.

Review type

The publication uses  double-blind peer review :
  • The author does not receive information about who is reviewing his work.
  • The reviewer receives the manuscript without indicating the authors and their affiliations.
Reviewers are appointed by specialists with a scientific degree who have published on the topic of the manuscript within the last 3 years and have no conflict of interest with the authors. 
  • Interaction between reviewers is not provided.
  • If after the appointment of a reviewer, a conflict of interest is discovered (in particular, joint publications in the last 2 years  or  a joint place of work ), such a reviewer is immediately removed. The editorial board appoints a new expert, which is recorded in the internal protocol with the justification for the replacement.

Decision-making regulations

  • To make an editorial decision, it is necessary to receive at least two positive opinions  from independent reviewers.
  • In case of significant differences in evaluations (one "for", one "against"), a third independent reviewer or independent responsible editor is appointed for the final conclusion.
 
Manuscripts of editorial board members and the Editor-in-Chief undergo  a separate procedure :
  • An independent editor-in-chief is appointed   from outside the author's circle of regular collaboration.
  • Only  external reviewers are involved  (without joint affiliation and publications with the author in the last 2 years).
  • The author-editor is completely deprived of access to manage this manuscript in the system.
 
 

Possible reviewer decisions

Based on the results of the review, the editorial office sends one of the following solutions to the author:
  • Accept for publication  (without comments).
  • Accept after minor revision  (correction of minor errors without re-review).
  • Return for major revision  (requires a second round of review after making edits).
  • Reject  (in case of non-compliance with scientific criteria or detection of gross errors).

Terms

  • Initial review: up to  1 week .
  • Review duration: 4  to 8 weeks .
  • In the event of disagreements between two reviewers, the editorial board appoints  a third expert  (arbitrator).