Reviewer Application Criteria

Reviewer Application Form ─ DOWNLOAD

Application form for researchers who wish to contribute to our journal as reviewers. This form collects important information about your academic background, areas of expertise, and previous reviewing experience, helping us match you with relevant manuscript submissions.


At InnovatioSports Journal, we aim to have qualified and specialized reviewers evaluate our scientific studies. Candidates applying for reviewer positions must meet the following criteria:

Qualifications and Requirements for Reviewers

  • Possess at least a master’s degree; a Ph.D. is preferred.
  • Expertise in subjects within the journal's scope.
  • Publications in national and international peer-reviewed journals.
  • Prior experience as a reviewer is preferred.
  • Commitment to scientific ethical standards and values.

Academic and Professional Experience Required for Reviewer Candidates

  • Published articles, books, or conference papers in the field.
  • Experience working in academic institutions or research organizations.
  • Experience participating in or leading research projects.

Application Form

Candidates wishing to apply for a reviewer position must complete the form below accurately and comprehensively. Guidelines and points to consider while filling out the form are also provided.

Reviewer Application Form

Personal Information:

  • Full Name:
  • Date of Birth:
  • Contact Address:
  • Email:
  • Phone:

Academic and Professional Information:

  • Highest Academic Degree:
  • Area of Expertise:
  • Current Position:
  • Academic Publications (Significant publications in the last 5 years):
  • Previous Reviewing Experience (if any):

Additional Information:

  • Declaration of adherence to scientific and ethical principles:
  • Disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest:
  • Specific areas of interest for reviewing (if any):

Approval and Signature:

  • I confirm the accuracy of the information provided.
  • Date:
  • Signature:

Points to Consider and Guidelines for Completing the Form

  • Ensure all requested information is completed.
  • Provide accurate and up-to-date information.
  • Use clear and concise language in each section.
  • Completion of the declarations of adherence to scientific and ethical principles and disclosure of conflicts of interest is mandatory.

Application Process and Evaluation

The peer review applications are evaluated based on the following process and schedule.

Steps and Timeline of the Application Process

1. Submission of Application

Candidates submit the application form online or via email.

2. Preliminary Review

Applications undergo an initial review by the editors.

3. Expertise Assessment

Suitable candidates are evaluated according to their areas of expertise.

4. Feedback

Successful applicants are notified and offered the reviewer position.

Evaluation of Applications and Notification of Results

  • Evaluation Criteria

Academic and professional qualifications, publication and review experience.

  • Notification of Results

Application results are communicated to candidates within 4 weeks of receipt.

  • Appointment

Accepted reviewers receive their first assignment and guidance.

Review Guide

Reviewers should consider the following criteria when evaluating submitted manuscripts:

Ethical and Scientific Principles

  • Confidentiality

Manuscript contents must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

  • Impartiality

Reviews should be conducted objectively and impartially.

  • Conflict of Interest

Any conflicts of interest should be disclosed to the editors.

  • Adherence to Ethical Standards

Manuscripts should be evaluated for compliance with ethical standards.

Evaluation Criteria

  • Title and Abstract

Does the title and abstract accurately reflect the content?

  • Introduction and Aim

Is the purpose of the study clearly stated?

  • Methods

Are the methods appropriate and adequately described?

  • Results

Are the results presented clearly and comprehensively?

  • Discussion and Conclusion

Does the discussion explain the findings' alignment with the literature and their contributions sufficiently?

  • References

Are the references current and relevant?

Reviewer Report

Upon completing their evaluation, reviewers must submit a detailed report to the editors. The report should include the following sections:

  • Summary Evaluation

A general assessment highlighting the main strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.

  • Detailed Comments

Section-by-section detailed comments and suggestions.

  • Conclusion and Recommendations

Recommendations on whether the manuscript should be accepted, rejected, or revised.

We expect our reviewers to contribute to enhancing the quality of our journal through their diligent efforts. 


Thank you for your contributions.