Physical Activity in Children adheres to a double-blind peer-reviewed process that is rapid and fair. In so doing, Physical Activity in Children needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts within 2-4 weeks after the time they accepted to review.
Peer Review Process
The decision to publish a paper is based on an editorial assessment and peer review. Initially all papers are assessed by editorial committee. The prime purpose is to decide whether to send a paper for peer review and to give a rapid decision on those that are not.
Papers which do not meet basic standards or are unlikely to be published irrespective of a positive peer review, for example because their novel contribution is insufficient or the relevance to the discipline is unclear, may be rejected at this point in order to avoid delays to authors who may wish to seek publication elsewhere. Occasionally a paper will be returned to the author with requests for revisions in order to assist the editors in deciding whether or not send it out for review.
Manuscripts going forward to the review process are reviewed by members of an expert panel. All such papers will undergo a double blind peer review by two or more reviewers. We take every reasonable step to ensure author identity is concealed during the review process but it is up to authors to ensure that their details of prior publications etc. do not reveal their identity.
Reviewers are the main members contributing for the benefit of the journal being a peer reviewed (double-blind) journal they are insisted not to disclose their identity in any form. A reviewer should immediately decline to review an article submitted if he/she feels that the article is technically unqualified or if the timely review cannot be done by him/her or if the article has a conflict of interest.
All submissions should be treated as confidential, editorial approval might be given for any outside person’s advice received. No reviewer should pass on the article submitted to him/her for review to another reviewer in his own concern, and it should be declined immediately.
Reviewers being the base of the whole quality process should ensure that the articles published should be of high quality and original work. He may inform the Editor-in-Chief if he finds the article submitted to him for review is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge.
There are no hard and fast rules to analysis an article, this can be done on case-to-case basis considering the worthiness, quality, and originality of the article submitted:
A reviewer’s comment decides the acceptance or rejection of an article. reviewer’s are one major element in a peer review process. All our reviewers are requested to go through the articles submitted to them for review in detail and give the review comments without any bias, which will increase the quality of our journals.