Sport, Health and Performance Research (SHPR) follows a double-anonymised (double-blind) peer review process for all submitted manuscripts. In this model, neither the reviewers nor the authors know each other's identities, ensuring an impartial and objective assessment of every submission.
How the process works:
Submission: The corresponding author submits the manuscript through the journal system. All correspondence regarding the manuscript runs through this one author.
Screening: Before reaching reviewers, the manuscript is checked through the journal's screening process, including plagiarism and similarity checks.
Editor-in-Chief: After screening, the manuscript is sent to the Editor-in-Chief, who assigns a specialised scientific editor (associate editor) in the relevant field to handle the manuscript.
Associate Editor:The specialised scientific editor takes the manuscript forward. Unlike reviewers, the associate editor has full access to author names and affiliations.
Reviewer Invitation: The associate editor sends the manuscript to at least three independent reviewers working in the relevant field, selected for their expertise in the subject of the submission.
Double-Anonymised Review: Reviewers receive a version of the manuscript with author names and affiliations removed, and see only the text of the manuscript. This masking applies to every submission, in every journal.
Reports: Reviewers return a critical assessment intended to help both the authors and the journal, with their views set out in supporting argument. The specialised scientific editor (associate editor) then collects, consolidates, and finalises the reviewers' comments, and the Editor-in-Chief reviews and approves the consolidated decision. The finalised comments and decision are then sent to the author.
Revision: Authors send a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point reply to the reviewers, explaining each answer and each change made.
Editorial Approval: The manuscript is accepted or rejected on editorial approval following review.
Typical decision time: Usually 2–3 months from submission.
Reviewer commitments under double-anonymised review:
Keep all information about a manuscript confidential and treat it as privileged.
Review objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. Any personal knowledge of the authors must not affect comments or decisions.
Express views clearly, with supporting argument.
Identify relevant published work the authors have not cited.
Draw the editor-in-chief's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap with other published articles.
Decline to review where a conflict of interest exists — competitive, collaborative or any other relationship with the authors, companies or institutions connected to the work.
Give written feedback on the scholarly merit and scientific value of the work, and return it within the time agreed.
Keep comments relevant to the subject and factually accurate, and frame judgements constructively so the author can see how the work could be improved.
Do not retain the manuscript, or any copy of it, once the review is complete.
Do not contact the author directly without the editor's permission.