Peer Review Process

 
 
Editorial Policy

Peer Review Process

The Kinesiology and Physiotherapy Comprehensive Journal (KPCJ) operates a rigorous double-blind peer review process — neither the reviewer's nor the author's identities are disclosed to the other party at any stage of the review.

Double-Blind Review COPE Compliant ICMJE Standards 2 Independent Reviewers 30–60 Days

All manuscripts submitted to KPCJ undergo a structured editorial review to ensure scientific quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's scope. The review process is governed by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (2017, updated 2023), ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct of Peer Review, and the WAME Policy Statement on Peer Review. Decisions are made solely on the basis of scholarly merit and relevance.

Submission Flowchart

Manuscript Submission

Author submits via OJS

 
 
Administrative & Format Check

Completeness, format, plagiarism screening (Turnitin), grammar check (Grammarly)

Desk Rejection

Out of scope, high similarity,
or incomplete submission

 
 

Passes Screening

Forwarded to Editor-in-Chief
for scope evaluation

Initial Evaluation (Editor-in-Chief)

Scope, scientific merit, ethical compliance

 
 
Double-Blind Peer Review (2 Reviewers)

Independent expert review — 14–21 days

 
 

Accept

Minor Revision

Major Revision

Reject

 
 
Editorial Review & Final Decision

Editor proofs, author approval, galley preparation

 
 
Online Publication

DOI assigned · Garuda · Crossref · Google Scholar

Step-by-Step Review Process

1

Submission & Manuscript Preparation

Authors must prepare manuscripts in a way that does not reveal their identity to facilitate the double-blind review process. The following two-file submission is required:

File 1: Title Page

Contains the full title, author names, affiliations, ORCID IDs, and the corresponding author's complete contact details (address, phone, email).

File 2: Blinded Manuscript

Complete manuscript with all author-identifying information removed. Must follow blinding requirements listed below.

Blinding Requirements for the Manuscript:

Refer to your own prior work in the third person. Replace "as we previously showed" with "... has been shown before [Anonymous, 2023]".

In the reference list, cite your own work as: "[Anonymous, Year] Information withheld for double-blind reviewing."

Remove institutional logos, watermarks, or affiliation identifiers from all figures, tables, and supplementary files.

Omit the Acknowledgments section. Do not mention funding sources, grant numbers, or trial registration in the blinded file.

Limit self-citations to those essential for evaluating the manuscript's contribution. Do not over-cite your own work.

File names and document metadata (Author, Company fields in Word properties) must not contain any identifying information.

2

Initial Evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief

Before assigning reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial assessment of all submitted manuscripts. This evaluation covers:

Scope relevance — alignment with journal aims and scope

Originality screening — Turnitin similarity report review

Scientific soundness — basic methodological adequacy

Ethical compliance — ethical approval, consent, AI disclosure

Language quality — clarity and grammar adequacy

Format compliance — adherence to author guidelines and template

Manuscripts that fail the initial evaluation will receive a desk rejection with a brief explanation. Desk rejection does not imply a judgment on the scientific merit — authors are encouraged to address identified issues and resubmit to KPCJ or a more appropriate journal.

3

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass initial evaluation are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their subject-matter expertise, absence of conflict of interest, and availability. The double-blind process protects both parties from bias.

Reviewer Criteria (COPE/ICMJE Compliant):

Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest (financial, personal, or academic) before accepting an invitation. A reviewer must decline if they have collaborated with an author in the past 3 years.

Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality — manuscript content must not be shared, discussed, or used in any capacity beyond the review (COPE Guideline 2.2).

Reviewers must not use AI tools to generate review content. AI may only be used for grammar checking of the reviewer's own writing; the analytical judgment must remain the reviewer's own (aligned with COPE, 2023).

Reviews must be constructive, specific, and evidence-based. Personal or dismissive comments about authors are not permitted (COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, Principle 5).

Reviewers are expected to notify the editor promptly if they suspect research misconduct, duplicate submission, image manipulation, or other ethical concerns (COPE Flowchart: Suspected Redundant Publication).

Reviewer Checklists:

Author Response to Review:

Authors will receive reviewer comments via the OJS system. They are given 7 days (minor revision) or 21 days (major revision) to respond to reviewers' comments and resubmit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response letter. Failure to resubmit within the deadline may result in withdrawal of the manuscript. The revised manuscript will be re-evaluated by the original reviewer(s) before a final decision is made.

4

Editorial Review & Production

Manuscripts that clear the peer review stage are forwarded to the Editor for final proofreading, copyediting, and layout. The author is required to approve the final galley proof before publication. Minor corrections may be made at the editor's discretion following the author's suggestions.

Upon acceptance, the article will be assigned a DOI via Crossref, converted to PDF galley format, and published online in the scheduled issue (April, August, or December). The article will then be indexed progressively in Google Scholar, Garuda, Dimensions, and other databases.

Possible Editorial Decisions

Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication as submitted or with only very minor editorial adjustments. No further substantive changes are required.

Minor Revision

Small corrections are required (language, formatting, minor clarifications). The revised manuscript is reviewed by the Editor only. Deadline: 7 days.

Major Revision

Substantial changes to the methodology, analysis, or interpretation are required. The revised manuscript is re-evaluated by the original reviewers. Deadline: 21 days.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet KPCJ's standards for publication. A rejection decision is final and the same manuscript may not be resubmitted. Authors may submit a new, substantially different manuscript.

Indicative Timeline

Stage

Responsible

Duration

Administrative Check

Editorial Staff

1–3 days

Initial Evaluation

Editor-in-Chief

3–7 days

Peer Review

2 Reviewers

14–21 days

Author Revision

Authors

7–21 days

Editorial & Galley

Editor

5–10 days

Total (estimated)

Full process

30–60 days

Standards & Regulatory References

COPE

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

ICMJE

Recommendations for Peer Review

COPE Flowcharts

Editorial decision flowcharts

WAME

Policy Statement on Peer Review

KPCJ Publication Ethics

Full ethics policy of this journal

KPCJ Reviewer Board

Meet our expert reviewers