GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. It is also an exciting and valuable academic experience. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Exercise and Quality of Life (EQOL), its editors, authors, and readers therefore appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. We hope that these guidelines will help make your task easier.

On some occasions, it may not be necessary to provide a detailed report. These are generally cases where the manuscript is so poorly prepared as to be virtually incomprehensible, or where the study design contains fundamental flaws that cannot reasonably be corrected. Where a contribution is too limited for acceptance but nevertheless holds some interest, reviewers may wish to encourage the authors to undertake further work towards a more substantial paper. Alternatively, some material may be more appropriately reported as a short communication.

Most manuscripts can benefit from revision before publication. Even when recommending acceptance, reviewers will often identify specific improvements that can strengthen the paper.

Please ensure that your critical comments are consistent with your recommendation regarding publication. Authors may be confused when largely positive comments or only minor criticism are accompanied by a recommendation to reject. If rejection is recommended, please provide sufficient scientific grounds. Rejection is inevitably disappointing to authors, and comments should therefore remain constructive, professional, and respectful. A negative decision is easier to understand when it is clear that the reviewers have evaluated the manuscript carefully and thoroughly.

Reviewers are not expected to focus primarily on conformity with the Journal's technical style requirements. Nevertheless, minor technical or presentation issues may be noted in the review report or, where appropriate, through comments in an annotated manuscript file.

Review Form

Reviewers complete their reports directly through the OPUS Journal Management Platform. The structured review form used by Exercise and Quality of Life is presented below for transparency. No separate form needs to be downloaded or submitted.

PAPER QUALITY EVALUATION

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the following aspects of the manuscript using the scale Poor / Normal / Good / Excellent:

1. Originality of the topic
2. Scientific contribution
3. Methodological approach
4. Quality of references
5. Clarity in expression

PAPER CLASSIFICATION

Reviewers are asked to indicate the appropriate classification of the manuscript.

REVIEWER COMPETENCY

Reviewers are asked to rate their competency in relation to the manuscript topic.

COMMENTS FOR AUTHORS

Reviewers should provide clear, constructive, and sufficiently detailed comments for the authors, identifying both the strengths of the manuscript and any revisions required.

CONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS FOR THE EDITOR

Reviewers may provide additional comments intended exclusively for the Editorial Office. These comments are not shared with the authors.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Reviewers are required to declare any actual or potential conflict of interest relevant to the manuscript or the review process.

RECOMMENDATION

At the end of the review, reviewers submit an overall recommendation regarding the manuscript through the OPUS platform.

We recognize that reviewers provide an essential service to the Journal without direct compensation. Whenever appropriate, the Editorial Office may provide reviewers with feedback or information regarding the editorial outcome. Any reviewer reports or related materials must be treated as strictly confidential.

Please consider the following questions before preparing your written report:

1. Does the manuscript sufficiently advance knowledge to merit publication?
2. Is the content of the manuscript within the scope of the Journal?
3. Is the presentation sufficiently clear, precise, and well organized?
4. Are the methods described in sufficient detail to allow the study to be understood and, where applicable, replicated?
5. Are the figures and tables necessary, clear, and adequately presented?
6. Are the aims clearly defined and appropriately addressed?
7. Are the statistical or other analytical methods appropriate and clearly reported?
8. Are the conclusions adequately supported by the results and evidence presented?
9. Are the references relevant, adequate, and appropriately presented in accordance with the Guidelines for Authors?
10. Does the abstract accurately reflect the purpose, methods, main findings, and conclusions of the manuscript?