Abstract
The peer-review process plays a central role in ensuring the quality and credibility of scientific research; however, it remains characterized by variability, limited standardization, and a lack of domain-specific evaluation criteria. These limitations are particularly evident in sport science, a multidisciplinary field involving complex, context-dependent, and applied performance data. Although several guidelines for peer-review exist, they are often either generic or tailored to specific domains, limiting their applicability to sport science research. The aim of the present study was to develop a comprehensive, domain-specific reviewer checklist for sport science journals. Building on a previously proposed conceptual framework of publishable research, the checklist operationalizes key dimensions of manuscript evaluation into structured criteria, spanning editorial screening, conceptual foundation, methodological and analytical rigor, research transparency, scientific communication, and scientific and practical impact. In addition, the framework integrates both hierarchical and iterative elements of the peer-review process, conceptualizing manuscript evaluation as a cyclical process that begins and concludes with editorial decision-making. The proposed checklist provides a structured and contextually relevant tool to support reviewers in conducting more consistent and transparent evaluations, while assisting editors in decision-making and offering authors clearer expectations. Although not yet empirically validated, the proposed framework represents a step toward improving the quality, consistency, and contextual relevance of peer-review in sport science.
Keywords:
ARTICLE INFORMATION
LICENSE
Copyright (c) 2026 Spyridon Plakias
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
HOW TO CITE
Plakias, S. (2026). A domain-specific peer-review checklist for sport science journals: Translating a conceptual framework into practice. Physical Education and Sports: Studies and Research, 5(2), 172-181. https://doi.org/10.56003/pessr.v5i2.741
DOWNLOADS
References
Arthur, F. H. (2020). Scientific manuscripts and the peer-review process. American Entomologist, 66(4), 36-40. https://doi.org/10.1093/ae/tmaa053
Bai, Z., & Bai, X. (2021). Sports big data: management, analysis, applications, and challenges. Complexity, 2021(1), 6676297. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6676297
Beugelsdijk, S., & Bird, A. (2025). How to avoid a desk reject: do’s and don’ts. Journal of International Business Studies, 56(3), 301-310. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-024-00712-8
Bishop, D., Burnett, A., Farrow, D., Gabbett, T., & Newton, R. (2006). Sports-science roundtable: does sports-science research influence practice? International journal of sports physiology and performance, 1(2), 161-168. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.1.2.161
Busse, C., & August, E. (2021). How to write and publish a research paper for a peer-reviewed journal. Journal of Cancer Education, 36(5), 909-913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z
Bustin, S. A. (2025). Beyond the Review: The Editorial Duty to Uphold Professional Conduct. Publications, 13(4), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13040048
Chew, J. A., Emmert, J. L., Klasing, K. C., Kogut, M., Fairchild, B., & Ali, M. (2025). Symposium: Essentials of scientific writing for publications. Poultry science, 104(5), 104989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2025.104989
Dhillon, P. (2021). How to be a good peer reviewer of scientific manuscripts. The FEBS journal, 288(9), 2750-2756. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.15705
Edmans, A. (2025). Learnings from 1000 rejections. Financial Management, 54(2), 419-444. https://doi.org/10.1111/fima.12487
Eisenmann, J. (2017). Translational gap between laboratory and playing field: new era to solve old problems in sports science. Translational Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine, 2(8), 37-43. https://doi.org/10.1249/TJX.0000000000000032
Falavigna, A., Blauth, M., & Kates, S. L. (2017). Critical review of a scientific manuscript: a practical guide for reviewers. Journal of Neurosurgery, 128(1), 312-321. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.5.JNS17809
Fullagar, H. H., McCall, A., Impellizzeri, F. M., Favero, T., & Coutts, A. J. (2019). The translation of sport science research to the field: a current opinion and overview on the perceptions of practitioners, researchers and coaches. Sports medicine, 49(12), 1817-1824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01139-0
Goes, F., Meerhoff, L., Bueno, M., Rodrigues, D., Moura, F., Brink, M., Elferink-Gemser, M., Knobbe, A., Cunha, S., & Torres, R. (2021). Unlocking the potential of big data to support tactical performance analysis in professional soccer: A systematic review. European Journal of Sport Science, 21(4), 481-496. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2020.1747552
Halperin, I. (2018). Case studies in exercise and sport sciences: a powerful tool to bridge the science–practice gap. International journal of sports physiology and performance, 13(6), 824-825. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0185
Halperin, I., Vigotsky, A. D., Foster, C., & Pyne, D. B. (2018). Strengthening the practice of exercise and sport-science research. International journal of sports physiology and performance, 13(2), 127-134. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2017-0322
Hoogenboom, B. J., & Manske, R. C. (2012). How to write a scientific article. International journal of sports physical therapy, 7(5), 512. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3474301/
Hughes, J. D., Cristiani, R., Hirschmann, M. T., Musahl, V., Eriksson, K., & Karlsson, J. (2023). Tips and tricks for how to become a good reviewer. Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy, 31(11), 4631-4636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-023-07595-6
Jha, K. N. (2014). How to write articles that get published. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR, 8(9), XG01. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2014/8107.4855
Kadam, S. D. (2025). Challenges in scientific writing: Editor's perspective. Journal of Ayurveda Case Reports, 8(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.4103/jacr.jacr_47_25
Lake, E. T. (2020). Why and how to avoid a desk‐rejection. Research in Nursing & Health, 43(2), 141-142. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22016
Lu, E. P., Fischer, B. G., Plesac, M. A., & Olson, A. P. (2022). Research methods: how to perform an effective peer review. Hospital pediatrics, 12(11), e409-e413. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2022-006764
Maiorana, F. A., & Mayer, H. F. (2018). How to avoid common errors in writing scientific manuscripts. European Journal of Plastic Surgery, 41(5), 489-494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-018-1418-z
Malone, J. J., Harper, L. D., Jones, B., Perry, J., Barnes, C., & Towlson, C. (2019). Perspectives of applied collaborative sport science research within professional team sports. European Journal of Sport Science, 19(2), 147-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1492632
Mănescu, D. C. (2025). Big Data Analytics Framework for Decision-Making in Sports Performance Optimization. Data, 10(7), 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/data10070116
McGarry, T. (2009). Applied and theoretical perspectives of performance analysis in sport: Scientific issues and challenges. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 9(1), 128-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2009.11868469
Meijer, A., & Webster, W. (2024). Why do we desk reject so many papers? Information Polity, 29(4), 377-378. https://doi.org/10.1177/15701255241302781
Memmert, D. (2025). Editorial for Sports Performance section of Journal of Sports Sciences: Moving match analysis forward – Guidelines and perspectives. Journal of Sports Sciences, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2025.2535850
Mondal, S., Juhi, A., Kumari, A., Dhanvijay, A. K., Mittal, S., & Mondal, H. (2023). Peer review in scientific publishing: Current practice, guidelines, relevancy, and way forward. CosmoDerma, 3. https://doi.org/10.25259/CSDM_35_2023
Pickett, S. T., & McDonnell, M. J. (2017). The art and science of writing a publishable article. Journal of Urban Ecology, 3(1), jux018. https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/jux018
Piggott, B., Müller, S., Chivers, P., Papaluca, C., & Hoyne, G. (2019). Is sports science answering the call for interdisciplinary research? A systematic review. European Journal of Sport Science, 19(3), 267-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1508506
Plakias, S. (2026a). An Integrated Framework for Publishable Sport Science Research. Publications, 14(2), 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14020026
Plakias, S. (2026b). Reclaiming the value of qualitative analysis in sports performance research. Physical Education and Sports: Studies and Research, 5(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.56003/pessr.v5i1.672
Plakias, S., Tsatalas, T., Betsios, X., & Giakas, G. (2025). A new era in soccer performance analysis research? Insight - Sports Science, 7(1), 741. https://doi.org/10.18282/iss741
Reid, C., Stewart, E., & Thorne, G. (2004). Multidisciplinary sport science teams in elite sport: Comprehensive servicing or conflict and confusion? The sport psychologist, 18(2), 204-217. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.18.2.204
Rein, R., & Memmert, D. (2016). Big data and tactical analysis in elite soccer: future challenges and opportunities for sports science. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3108-2
Richards, K. A. R., Hemphill, M. A., & Flory, S. B. (2021). A collaborative approach to manuscript revisions and responses to reviewer comments. Journal of teaching in physical education, 41(3), 341-346. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2021-0118
Schulte, P. J., Goldberg, J. D., Oster, R. A., Ambrosius, W. T., Bonner, L. B., Cabral, H., Carter, R. E., Chen, Y., Desai, M., & Li, D. (2024). Peer review of clinical and translational research manuscripts: Perspectives from statistical collaborators. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 8(1), e20. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2023.707
Sedaghat, A. R., Bernal‐Sprekelsen, M., Fokkens, W. J., Smith, T. L., Stewart, M. G., & Johnson, R. F. (2024). How to be a good reviewer: A step‐by‐step guide for approaching peer review of a scientific manuscript. Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 9(3), e1266. https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.1266
Sizo, A., Lino, A., Rocha, Á., & Reis, L. P. (2025). Defining quality in peer review reports: a scoping review. Knowledge and Information Systems, 67(8), 6413-6460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-025-02435-0
Tennant, J. P. (2018). The state of the art in peer review. FEMS Microbiology letters, 365(19), fny204. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fny204
