Journal of Pedagogy in Sport and Physical Activity (JPSPA) applies a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process to ensure that only manuscripts of genuine scholarly merit are accepted for publication. All submitted manuscripts are evaluated solely on their academic quality, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope — regardless of the authors' identity, affiliation, or nationality.

1. Review Type

This journal employs a double-blind peer review process. Neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities throughout the review process. This ensures objectivity, minimises bias, and protects the integrity of the evaluation.

2. Editorial Review Process — Step by Step

Step Stage Description Estimated Duration 1 Submission Author submits manuscript via the OJS online submission system. An acknowledgement of receipt is sent automatically. Immediate 2 Initial Editorial Screening The Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial screening to assess: (a) relevance to the journal's scope, (b) plagiarism check via Turnitin (max. 20% similarity), (c) compliance with author guidelines and manuscript template, and (d) basic scientific quality. Manuscripts that do not meet minimum standards are rejected at this stage without peer review. 1–2 weeks 3 Reviewer Assignment Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to a minimum of two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter. Reviewers are selected to avoid any conflict of interest with the authors. 1 week 4 Double-Blind Peer Review Each reviewer independently evaluates the manuscript based on 15 established review criteria (see Section 4). Reviewers submit a structured review report with one of the following recommendations: (a) Accept, (b) Minor Revision, (c) Major Revision, or (d) Reject. 3–4 weeks 5 Editorial Decision The Editor-in-Chief reviews both reviewer reports and makes a final editorial decision. In cases of conflicting reviewer recommendations, a third reviewer may be consulted. The decision and reviewer comments are communicated to the author. 1 week 6 Revision (if required) Authors are given a defined period to revise their manuscript in response to reviewer comments. A point-by-point response letter is required. Revised manuscripts may undergo a second round of review if major revisions were requested. 2–4 weeks (author) 7 Final Acceptance Upon satisfactory revision, the Editor-in-Chief issues a formal letter of acceptance. The manuscript proceeds to copyediting, layout, and production. 1 week 8 Publication Accepted manuscripts are published in the next available issue. The journal publishes two issues per year: April and October. Per issue schedule

3. Grounds for Rejection

Manuscripts may be rejected at any stage of the process on the following grounds: Stage Grounds for Rejection Initial Screening Out of scope; plagiarism above 20%; non-compliance with template; insufficient scientific quality to proceed to review. Peer Review Unsound methodology; unsupported conclusions; lack of originality; insufficient contribution to the field; fundamental flaws in research design or data analysis. Post-Revision Failure to adequately address reviewer comments; introduction of new unreviewed content; persistent quality issues after revision. Any Stage Detection of research misconduct including data fabrication, falsification, duplicate submission, or undisclosed conflicts of interest.

4. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria (15 Items)

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using a structured scoring form with 15 items, each rated on a scale of 1–4 (1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Good, 4 = Excellent), with a maximum total score of 60. No Criterion Description 1 Originality Novelty of ideas, approach, data, or research perspective compared to prior studies. The article must not be repetitive or duplicate existing work. 2 Topic Relevance & Impact on Physical Education The extent to which the research topic is relevant, important, and impactful for the development of physical education science and practice. 3 Title Clarity, accuracy, and appropriateness of the title in reflecting the article's content and research variables. 4 Abstract Whether the abstract clearly and concisely reflects the study's objectives, methods, key results, and conclusions. 5 Keywords Accuracy and relevance of keywords in representing the article's content and supporting effective indexing and discoverability. 6 Introduction Clarity of background, problem formulation, research objectives, novelty, and support from relevant and up-to-date literature. 7 Method Clarity of research design, subjects/sample, instruments, procedures, data analysis techniques, and compliance with research ethics. 8 Results Clarity of results presentation, completeness of data, and consistency with the analysis methods used. 9 Discussion Depth of analysis, connection between results and theory or prior research, and the author's ability to interpret findings meaningfully. 10 Conclusion Accuracy of conclusions in answering research objectives and consistency with the results obtained. 11 Research Limitations Honesty and clarity of the authors in disclosing research limitations that affect results and generalizability. 12 Implications & Recommendations Practical and theoretical contribution of the findings, and relevance of recommendations for future research or practice. 13 References Adequacy, recency, relevance, and consistency of references written in accordance with the journal's citation style (APA). 14 Data Availability & Overall Data Quality Completeness, clarity, and quality of data used in the study, including transparency of data sources and data management practices. 15 Research & Publication Ethics Compliance Compliance with research and publication ethics principles, including ethical clearance (where applicable), informed consent, academic honesty (including AI disclosure), freedom from plagiarism, and declaration of conflicts of interest.

5. Reviewer Selection & Independence

Reviewers are selected based on their subject matter expertise and academic standing. The following principles apply: Reviewers must have relevant expertise in the manuscript's topic area Reviewers must not have a conflict of interest with any of the authors — including current or recent collaboration, co-authorship within the past three years, or personal/professional relationships that could bias evaluation Reviewers are expected to decline an invitation if they feel unable to provide an objective assessment Reviewer identities are always kept confidential from authors Reviewers are expected to complete their review within the agreed timeframe; failure to do so will result in reassignment to an alternative reviewer

6. Appeals

Authors who believe their manuscript was rejected due to a misunderstanding or procedural error may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of receiving the rejection decision. Appeals must include a detailed justification and must not simply re-argue points already addressed by reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief's decision on appeals is final. Appeals can be submitted to: admin@sciencemovement.id

Estimated total time from submission to first decision: 6–8 weeks. The journal is committed to providing timely, constructive, and fair peer review for all submitted manuscripts.