Reviewer Guideline

Manuscripts submitted to the International Journal of Physical Activity, Nutrition and Health (IJPANH) are initially subjected to a preliminary evaluation by the Editorial Board. At this stage, the study’s topic must be suitable for the journal’s scope and include theoretical, experimental, or applied current scientific data in the fields of Physical Activity, Nutrition, and Health Sciences.

The Editor evaluates the submission for compliance with the journal’s aims, scope, and publication policies. Based on this assessment, the Editor reserves the right to reject the manuscript without proceeding to peer review.

IJPANH employs a double-blind peer review process. Manuscripts deemed suitable following preliminary evaluation are forwarded to two (2) independent experts in the relevant field, whose identities remain confidential. Throughout the review process, the authors’ identities are strictly withheld from reviewers, the Editorial Board, and the publisher.

Upon completion of peer review, the Editor communicates the evaluation results to the corresponding author. Authors are obliged to revise their manuscripts by taking reviewers’ feedback into account. Reviewers have the right to recommend rejection, provided they state their justifications.

Authors are expected to participate actively in the review process and are responsible for submitting all requested documents—such as raw data, ethical committee approval, and informed consent forms—completely and on time. If a manuscript receives a “revision required” decision after the first round of review, the author(s) must respond to each reviewer comment systematically and in a timely manner, and resubmit the revised version by the given deadline.

A manuscript can only be accepted if it receives positive recommendations from both reviewers. In cases where one reviewer recommends rejection and the other recommends acceptance, the manuscript is sent to a third independent reviewer. At least two positive reviews are required for a manuscript to be accepted for publication.

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of a manuscript lies solely with the Editorial Board, which is responsible for upholding the scientific and ethical standards of the journal.

The journal aims to maintain a rigorous yet efficient evaluation process. The review timeline is as follows:

  • Editorial preliminary evaluation: 10 days

  • Peer review process: 30 days

  • Author revision period: 10 days

These durations are renewed for each round of review and revision. If necessary, the Editor may take additional measures to expedite the process.

The entire evaluation process—including editorial screening, peer review, and author revisions—is to be completed within a maximum of 90 days. At the end of this period, the Editorial Board issues its final decision.