Peer Review

All materials submitted to the Editorial Board are initially screened for compliance with the Aims and Scope of the proceedings and the manuscript preparation guidelines. In addition, all submissions undergo plagiarism detection. Manuscripts that fall outside the thematic scope of the journal, fail to meet the submission requirements, or demonstrate evidence of plagiarism are not registered and are rejected without further consideration. In such cases, the Editorial Board duly notifies the authors. A decision on whether the manuscript will proceed to the peer review stage is made within five days of submission.

All manuscripts submitted to the scientific proceedings “Physical Culture, Sport and the Health of the Nation” are subject to mandatory peer review. The Editorial Office follows a double-blind peer review policy to ensure impartiality, academic integrity, and the high scholarly quality of published research. Under this model, the identity of the reviewer is concealed from the author, and the identity of the author is likewise concealed from the reviewer throughout the entire manuscript assessment process.

Reviewers engaged in the evaluation process include both members of the Editorial Board and external highly qualified experts, including Doctors of Sciences and PhD holders, whose academic specialization closely corresponds to the subject matter of the manuscript and who meet the requirements for ensuring high-quality independent peer review. The reviewer may not be the author or co-author of the manuscript, nor may they serve as the academic supervisor of a degree-seeking researcher whose work is under consideration.

The peer review period is approximately up to four weeks from the date the manuscript is sent to the reviewers.

The purpose of the peer review process is to select author manuscripts for publication and to provide specific recommendations for their improvement. The review procedure is designed to ensure the most objective possible assessment of the scientific content of the manuscript, determine its compliance with the publication’s requirements, and provide a comprehensive analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the submitted material.

Only those manuscripts that demonstrate scientific value and contribute to addressing current research problems and challenges are accepted for publication.

The criteria for manuscript evaluation include:

• the consistency of the article title with the content of the material presented;
• the correspondence of the abstracts to the substance of the manuscript;
• the degree of scientific novelty;
• the completeness and representativeness of the study’s source base;
• consideration of contemporary research on the issue under investigation;
• the validity of the scientific arguments and conclusions;
• the linguistic accuracy and stylistic quality of the presentation;
• compliance with the journal’s requirements regarding the structure of the article and the reference list.

By completing the prescribed review form, the reviewer provides a reasoned recommendation regarding the possibility or impossibility of publishing the manuscript in the scientific proceedings, or indicates the need for revision.

If the reviewer identifies the need for specific corrections, the manuscript is returned to the author with a request either to address the comments in preparing a revised version or to provide a reasoned rebuttal. The revised manuscript is then resubmitted to the reviewer for a final decision and the preparation of a substantiated recommendation regarding its suitability for publication.

In the event that the manuscript is rejected, the Editorial Office provides the author with a reasoned decision of refusal.

Only those manuscripts that receive two positive reviews are approved for publication by decision of the Editorial Board.

The date on which an article is recommended for publication is considered to be the date on which the Editorial Office receives the second positive reviewer report or the date of the Editorial Board’s decision regarding the advisability and feasibility of publishing the manuscript.

Any manuscript received from the Editorial Office for peer review is treated as a confidential document. Reviewers’ comments are neither published nor otherwise disclosed. The original review reports are retained in the Editorial Office of the scientific proceedings for no less than three years.