A guide for authors

Once you've submitted your paper to a journal, it'll be sent out for assessment by independent experts in the field. These reviewers, sometimes called 'referees,' are asked to judge your work's validity, significance, and originality. Find out below how the peer review process works and how to use it to ensure every article you publish is as good as possible. Peer review is the independent assessment of your research paper by experts in your field. Its purpose is to evaluate the manuscript's quality and suitability for publication. As well as being a form of quality control for academic journals, peer review is also a beneficial source of feedback, helping you improve your paper before publication. At its best, the review is a collaborative process where authors dialogue with their peers and receive constructive support to advance their work.

Sports Business Journal and peer review integrity

Every full research article published in Sports Business Journal has been through peer review as outlined in the journal's Aims & Scope information. In a peer-review process, we publish all research articles in this journal that have undergone rigorous peer review based on initial editor screening, anonymous refereeing by independent expert referees, and consequent revision by article authors when required.

Double-blind peer review

In this journal model, the reviewers don't know that you are the article's author. And you don't know who the reviewers are, either. Double-anonymous review is widespread in the humanities and some social sciences.

Peer review follows several steps, beginning with submitting your article to the Sports Business Journal:

Step 1: Editor assessment

When your manuscript arrives at the journal's editorial office, it will receive an initial desk assessment by its editor or editorial office. They will check that it's broadly suitable for the journal, asking questions such as:

• Is this the right journal for this article? Does the paper cover a suitable topic according to the journal's Aims & Scope?
• Has the author followed the journal's guidelines in the Instructions for Authors? They will check that your paper conforms to the basic requirements of the journal, such as word count, language clarity, and format.
• Has the author included everything that's needed for peer review? They will check an abstract, author affiliation details, figures, and research-funder information.
• Does it make a significant contribution to the existing literature?

If your article doesn't pass these initial checks, the editor might reject the article immediately. This is known as a 'desk reject' and is a decision made at the editor's discretion based on their substantial experience and subject expertise. This initial screening can enable a quick decision if your manuscript isn't suitable for the journal, allowing you to quickly submit your article to another journal.

If your article does pass the initial assessment, it will move to the next stage and into peer review.

Step 2: First round of peer review

The editor will then find and contact other researchers who are experts in your field, asking them to review the paper. Usually, a minimum of two reviewers is required for every article, but this can vary from journal to journal. The reviewers will be asked to read and comment on your article. So, they will be checking that:

• your work is original or new;
• the study design and methodology are appropriate and described so that others could replicate what you've done;
• results are appropriately  presented;
• your conclusions are reliable, significant, and supported by the research;
• the paper fits the scope of the journal;
• the work is of a high enough standard to be published in the journal.

Please note that if you have not shared your research data publicly, peer reviewers may request to see your datasets, to support the validation of the results in your article.

Once the editor has received and considered the reviewer reports and assessed your work, they will let you know their decision. The reviewer reports will share with you along with any additional guidance from the editor.

If you get an explicit acceptance, congratulations. Your article is ready to move to publication. Note, however, that this isn't common. Very often, you will need to revise your article and resubmit. Or it may be that the editor decides your paper needs to be rejected by that journal.

Please note that the final editorial decision on a paper and the choice of whom to invite to review is at the editor's discretion.

Step 3: Revise and resubmit

It is prevalent for the editor and reviewers to improve your paper before it is ready to be published. They might have only a few straightforward recommendations or require more substantial changes before your paper will be accepted for publication. Authors tell us that the reviewers' comments can be constructive, ensuring the article is high quality.

During this next stage of the process, you have time to amend your article based on the reviewers' comments, resubmitting it with any or all changes made. 

Once you resubmit your manuscript, the editor will look through the revisions. They will often send it out for the second round of peer review, asking the reviewers to assess how you've responded to their comments. After this, you may be asked to make further revisions, or the paper might be rejected if the editor thinks the changes you've made are inadequate.

Step 4: Accepted

And that's it; you've made it through peer review. The next step is production.

How long does peer review take?

Editorial teams work hard to progress papers through peer review as quickly as possible. However, knowing that this part of the process can take some time is essential. The first stage is for the editor to find suitably qualified expert reviewers who are available. Given the competing demands of research life, nobody can agree to every review request they receive. It's, therefore, not uncommon for a paper to go through several cycles of appeals before the editor finds reviewers willing and able to accept. Then those reviewers have to find time alongside their research, teaching and writing to consider your paper thoroughly. When you receive the reviewers' comments, try not to take personal offence from criticism of your article, even though that can be hard. Some researchers find it helpful to put the reviewer's report to one side for a few days after they've read it for the first time. Once you've gotten used to the idea that your article requires further work, you can more easily address the reviewer's comments objectively. Then read through the editor and reviewers' advice carefully, deciding what changes you will make to your article in response. Taking their points on board will ensure your final paper is as robust and impactful as possible. Please ensure you address all the reviewer and editor comments in your revisions.