Templates and Forms

Submission Evaluation Process

Int. J. Sports Tech. Sci.  (IJSTS) is a refereed journal. All articles sent to IJSTS pass through a reviewing process during which the names of the authors and the referees are blinded.

The manuscripts sent for evaluation go through the following steps:

Preliminary Evaluation

Before the articles are sent to the referees, they are evaluated regarding relevance to the journal by the editor. The criteria for evaluation of the articles include relevance to the scope, scientific validity, importance of the topic, relations with the former studies, the appropriateness of the sources and references and the length of the article. The manuscripts that do not comply with the scope, format and ethical considerations are rejected or asked revision. The articles accepted for evaluation by the editor are mostly sent to two or more referees to be evaluated independently.

Article Processing Charge

IJSTS does not charge authors for any submission, article processing or publication fee.

Publication cost

IJSTS is a non-profit journal. Authors are not charged any publication fees in any stages of the submission, review or publication.

Reviewing Policy

IJSTS applies blind-review process for submission evaluation. The names of the reviewers and the authors are blinded.

Blind-Review Process

The articles accepted for evaluation by the editor are sent to two referees to be evaluated independently. The reviewers are designated from referee repository in accordance with their expertise.

Reviewers evaluate the submissions with regard to authenticity, contribution to the field, critical analysis of literature, method, presentation of findings, discussion of the results and implications. Reviewers can accept, reject, or ask corrections/improvements for the submitted manuscripts. For a manuscript to be published, at least two reviewers should advice publication. When one reviewer recommends publication and the second reviewer recommends rejection, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer for evaluation.

When a manuscript is sent back for corrections or improvements, the author is required to do so within 30 days and submit the revised version of the manuscript and add a respond to the reviewers with a separate file. Reviewers can ask for more than one correction for the same manuscript. The rejected articles are not sent back to the authors.

Final Evaluation

All papers accepted for publication by the reviewers are sent to the editor for the final evaluation. The papers accepted for publication by the editor are added to the queue of accepted articles and are published in order of acceptance date.

The Length of Reviewing Process

The reviewing process may take long for various uncontrollable reasons. Normally, preliminary evaluation is completed within one week and reviewing process is finalized within one month. However, because of delays or rejections in review acceptance process or other various reasons, the process can last longer than anticipated. We kindly ask patience from our authors for such delays.

Authors who submit manuscripts to IJSTS accept the journal's evaluation and reviewing policy.



Authorship of the paper 
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Reporting standards 
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper, without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion' works should be clearly identified as such.

Data access and retention 
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and, if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Data, text, figures or ideas originated by other researchers should be properly acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Plagiarism Screening Policy

Manuscripts accepted for publication are subjected to plagiarism check through iThenticate plagiarism check software. Authors are expected to conform to the originality expectations of the journal. Once an act of over similarity/plagiarism is detected, authors are informed about the incident and their manuscript is rejected. Authors may be allowed to improve their manuscripts within acceptable limits of similarity.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication 
The authors must guarantee: (1) that the article has not been published elsewhere; (2) it is not being considered for publication elsewhere; and (3) that it has been submitted with the full knowledge and approval of the institution or organization given as the affiliation of the authors. Submission of multi-authored manuscripts implies the consent of each of the authors. 
If data from the article is used, partially or entirely, in other research articles, or the data and results represent only part of a bigger research project described in multiple publications, these must be clearly presented to the editor.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest 
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. 
Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

Fundamental errors in published works 
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly.


Publication decisions
An editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor must evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. 
Editors should recuse themselves (should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Response to ethical issues
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher.


Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Any selected expert who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest 
Reviewers and editors are required to declare any and all potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Review Process
1. Corresponding author uploads the manuscript, ORCID ID form and Publishing Agreement file.
2. Preliminary consideration will be implemented by the Co-editors.
3. ithenticate software will be used to get plagiarism report. Then the manuscript will be sent to Editor in Chief.
4. Editor decides whether manuscript is suitable or not. Editor will reject the paper if it is unsuitable.
5. Editor will assign reviewers who are professional in their topics.
6. Reviewers will decide to accept, minor revision, major revision or reject the paper in a month. Reviewers will give detailed information about their decisions.
7. Authors will have two months time to make necessary corrections. Otherwise, the paper will be rejected.
8. Corresponding author will upload the revised manuscript.
9. Editor decides whether to publish the revised manuscript or send back to reviewers.
10. The final version of manuscript will be checked by language editor.
11. The decision will be given in approximately three months time.

Download the Form (Ethics Committee Form)

Download The Form (Copyright Form)

Download the Form (Article Template Form)



Copyright © by International Journal of Sports Technology and Science (IJSTS). 

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously and it allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in IJSTS.