The evaluation of scientific manuscripts is a central component of the peer-review process (Bustin, 2025; Hoogenboom & Manske, 2012), ensuring the quality, credibility, and relevance of published research (Chew et al., 2025; Jha, 2014; Kadam, 2025). However, in practice, peer-review remains a largely unstandardized and heterogeneous process, with substantial variability in reviewer practices, limited formal training, and no universally accepted evaluation criteria, often leading to inconsistent and, at times, superficial assessments (Falavigna et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2022; Sizo et al., 2025).

In sport science, these limitations are particularly pronounced due to the inherently multidisciplinary nature of the field (Piggott et al., 2019; Reid et al., 2004), combined with the complexity and increasing volume of performance-related data (Bai & Bai, 2021; Mănescu, 2025; Rein & Memmert, 2016). Studies often involve large, multidimensional datasets, context-dependent variables (e.g., match status, opponent quality), and applied performance environments, which require domain-specific criteria for proper evaluation (Goes et al., 2021; McGarry, 2009; Memmert, 2025). In parallel, editorial decisions are influenced not only by methodological rigor, but also by factors such as alignment with journal scope, ethical compliance, and clarity of scientific communication (Arthur, 2020; Edmans, 2025; Lake, 2020; Pickett & McDonnell, 2017).

Despite the growing number of publications providing guidance on how to perform peer review, these contributions are frequently either too generic (Dhillon, 2021; Hughes et al., 2023; Lu et al., 2022; Mondal et al., 2023; Sedaghat et al., 2024; Sizo et al., 2025) or overly tailored to specific fields such as clinical research (Falavigna et al., 2017; Schulte et al., 2024). Consequently, there remains a lack of comprehensive, standardized, and domain-specific frameworks capable of supporting consistent and contextually appropriate evaluation of sport science manuscripts. A recent conceptual framework proposed that publishable sport science research should be understood as a progressive and hierarchical process, moving from conceptual foundations to methodological and analytical rigor, research transparency, and effective scientific communication, ultimately leading to both scientific and practical impact (Plakias, 2026a). However, although this framework provides a structured understanding of research quality, it does not directly translate into an operational tool for manuscript evaluation.

Therefore, the aim of the present study is to develop a comprehensive, domain-specific reviewer checklist for sport science journals. The proposed checklist operationalizes the dimensions of research quality into practical evaluation criteria, while also incorporating a preliminary editorial and ethical screening stage that reflects the realities of desk rejection. By providing a structured and hierarchical evaluation tool, this work seeks to enhance the quality and transparency of the peer-review process within sport science.

The present study proposes a domain-specific peer-review checklist for sport science journals, translating a previously developed conceptual framework of publishable research (Plakias, 2026a) into a practical evaluation tool. By operationalizing key dimensions of research quality into practical evaluation criteria, the checklist addresses the need for greater consistency and relevance in the peer-review process of sport science research.

A key contribution of the proposed framework is the integration of both hierarchical and iterative elements of manuscript evaluation. While the checklist is organized into progressive levels, ranging from editorial screening to scientific and practical impact, the circular representation reflects the dynamic nature of peer review, in which manuscripts are continuously refined through interactions between editors, reviewers and authors (Richards et al., 2021; Tennant, 2018). This perspective moves beyond traditional linear approaches and more accurately captures the realities of editorial decision-making.

The checklist also responds to limitations identified in existing reviewer guidelines, which are often either generic or tailored to specific domains (Dhillon, 2021; Falavigna et al., 2017; Hughes et al., 2023; Lu et al., 2022; Mondal et al., 2023; Schulte et al., 2024; Sedaghat et al., 2024; Sizo et al., 2025). By incorporating sport-specific considerations, such as contextual variables, ecological validity, and the research–practice gap, the proposed framework provides a more relevant and comprehensive tool for evaluating studies in this field. In particular, the inclusion of practical relevance and the translation of findings into applied settings reflects the applied nature of sport science and the increasing demand for research that informs practice (Bishop et al., 2006; Eisenmann, 2017; Fullagar et al., 2019; Halperin, 2018; Halperin et al., 2018; Malone et al., 2019; Plakias, 2026b; Plakias et al., 2025).

Furthermore, previous guidelines have predominantly approached manuscript evaluation through a section-based structure (e.g., title, abstract, methods, results, discussion) (Arthur, 2020; Busse & August, 2021; Hughes et al., 2023; Maiorana & Mayer, 2018; Sizo et al., 2025). In contrast, the present framework adopts a logic-driven and hierarchical approach, focusing on the underlying dimensions of research quality rather than the formal structure of the manuscript. Detailed considerations regarding the content of individual sections are already addressed in the previously published conceptual framework (Plakias, 2026a) and are therefore not repeated here.

From a practical perspective, the checklist may support reviewers in conducting more comprehensive and consistent evaluations, while assisting editors in making more consistent and transparent decisions. In addition, it may provide authors with clearer expectations regarding the criteria used to assess their work, potentially improving the overall quality of submitted manuscripts.

Despite these contributions, some limitations should be acknowledged. First, the checklist has not yet been empirically validated. Future research could examine its reliability, usability, and impact on review quality across different journals and reviewer populations. Second, certain elements of research transparency, such as pre-registration and data sharing, may not always be feasible in elite sport contexts due to data sensitivity and confidentiality constraints. Therefore, the application of these criteria should be considered in relation to the specific context of the study.

The proposed peer-review checklist provides a practical extension of a conceptual framework of research quality, offering a practical and domain-specific tool for the evaluation of sport science manuscripts. By integrating hierarchical evaluation criteria within a cyclical review process, the framework reflects both the logic of scientific reasoning and the realities of editorial decision-making. Its adoption may contribute to more consistent, transparent, and contextually appropriate peer-review in sport science. Future studies should empirically evaluate the reliability, usability, and effectiveness of the proposed checklist across reviewers and journals.”

XX

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

No funding was received for the preparation of this manuscript.

The author hereby declares that this research is free from conflicts of interest with any party.