Review Process

Peer Review Evaluation Principles

  1. Only manuscripts that have not been previously published, are not under consideration elsewhere, and are approved by all authors are accepted for review.

  2. Submitted manuscripts that pass the initial screening are checked for plagiarism using iThenticate (or Turnitin).

  3. The Journal of Young Sports Academy (JYSA) employs a double-blind peer review process. All manuscripts are first evaluated by the editor for suitability to the journal’s scope. Manuscripts deemed appropriate are then sent to at least two independent expert reviewers to assess scientific quality.

  4. The Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts fairly, regardless of the authors’ ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious belief, or political philosophy, and ensures that all submissions undergo an impartial double-blind peer review.

  5. The Editor-in-Chief does not permit conflicts of interest among authors, editors, and reviewers.

  6. The editor is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts. The editor’s decision is final.

  7. Editors do not participate in decisions concerning manuscripts written by themselves, their family members, or colleagues, or those related to products or services in which they have an interest. Such submissions are subject to all the journal’s usual procedures.

Reviewers must treat all information regarding submitted manuscripts as confidential until publication. If reviewers detect copyright infringement or plagiarism, they must report it to the editor. Reviewers who feel unqualified to evaluate a manuscript, or unable to provide a timely review, should inform the editor and excuse themselves from the process. The editor explicitly informs reviewers that submitted manuscripts are the intellectual property of the authors and represent privileged communication. Reviewers and editorial board members must not discuss manuscripts with third parties. Reviewer anonymity must always be maintained.

Review Process

Type of Peer Review

Double-Blind Review: After plagiarism screening, suitable manuscripts are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief for originality, methodology, significance of the subject matter, and alignment with the scope of the journal. If formally appropriate, manuscripts are sent to at least two reviewers (domestic and/or international) for evaluation. Following reviewers’ recommendations, and after any necessary revisions, the editor decides on publication.

Review Timeline

  • Pre-publication: All interactions between authors and reviewers are mediated by the editors.

  • Time to First Decision: For manuscripts under peer review, the average time to the initial decision is approximately 25–45 days.

  • Number of Reviewers per Manuscript: Minimum of two.

  • Review Time Allowed: 10 days (extendable by 5 additional days).

  • Decision Rule: At least two positive reviewer reports are required for acceptance.

  • Ethical Misconduct: If reviewers suspect misconduct or unethical practices, they must report their concerns to the editor, who will follow COPE recommendations.

The Editor-in-Chief screens each manuscript upon submission. If the manuscript merits further evaluation, it is assigned to an associate editor for detailed review. Aiming for transparency, all manuscripts should receive a decision within 60 days, though initial decisions are often made within days of submission. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable for JYSA (e.g., insufficient originality, out of scope) are rejected promptly to allow authors to resubmit elsewhere without delay.

At subsequent editorial board meetings, members discuss the significance, originality, and scientific merit of research manuscripts. Even if the topic is relevant, manuscripts without a clear research question may be rejected. Conflicts of interest are declared at the start of meetings, and those with significant conflicts must abstain from related discussions.

If suitable, manuscripts are sent to two external reviewers. Reviewers provide recommendations, declare any conflicts of interest, and submit structured reports. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on external reviews.

In cases of suspected serious misconduct, manuscripts may also be reviewed by the journal’s ethics editor or additional experts.

Editorial Principles for Staff Submissions

Editorials and opinion pieces written by JYSA editors are not subject to external peer review. However, original research articles authored by editors are sent to at least two external reviewers under the double-blind system, and the involved editors’ roles are suspended during the process.

Responsibilities of Authors

  • Authors must comply with research and publication ethics.

  • Authors must not submit the same study to more than one journal simultaneously.

  • Authors must provide complete and accurate references to all sources used.

Responsibilities of Editors

  • Editors evaluate manuscripts solely on scientific merit, regardless of authors’ ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious belief, or political opinion.

  • Editors ensure manuscripts undergo fair double-blind peer review and maintain confidentiality of all submissions prior to publication.

  • Editors inform reviewers that manuscripts are confidential and privileged communications.

  • Editors and board members must not discuss manuscripts with third parties.

  • Reviewer anonymity must be preserved.

  • Editors are responsible for the content and overall quality of publications, including issuing corrections or retractions when necessary.

  • Editors must avoid conflicts of interest between authors, reviewers, and editors.

  • The editorial board has ultimate responsibility for final publication decisions.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Reviewers must not have conflicts of interest with respect to research, authors, or funding bodies.

  • Reviews should be objective and constructive.

  • Language and comments must be respectful and not offensive to authors.

  • Reviewers must maintain confidentiality of all information prior to publication.

  • Reviewers must report any detected copyright infringement or plagiarism to the editor.

  • Reviewers who feel unqualified or unable to complete a review in the allotted time should withdraw from the process.

When evaluating a manuscript, reviewers are expected to consider:

  • Does the article present new and significant information?

  • Does the abstract clearly describe the content?

  • Are the methods clearly and sufficiently described?

  • Are the interpretations and conclusions supported by the data?

  • Is adequate reference made to other work in the field?

  • Is the language and overall quality acceptable?

Initial Screening and Plagiarism Check

All submissions are first checked for compliance with journal guidelines and APA-6 citation style, then scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate or Turnitin. The similarity index must be below 20%. Even with a low similarity percentage, improper attribution or quotation may still constitute plagiarism. Authors are expected to follow citation rules carefully.

  • Direct quotations: Must be enclosed in quotation marks with proper citation.

  • Long quotations (>40 words): Should be presented as a separate indented paragraph.

  • Omissions: Indicated by ellipses (…).
    Failure to adhere to these rules may result in accusations of plagiarism and rejection.

Section Editor Review

Manuscripts passing the plagiarism check undergo review by the relevant section editor for clarity, academic style, and problem formulation. This step is completed within 30 days.

Peer Review (Academic Evaluation)

Manuscripts are reviewed by at least two external experts with doctoral-level expertise, relevant books, or publications in the subject area. Reviews are conducted under the double-blind model. Reviewers must provide written justification (minimum 150 words) for their evaluations. Authors are allowed to respond to reviewers’ comments.

  • If both reviewers are positive, the manuscript is forwarded to the Editorial Board.

  • If one review is negative, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer.

  • A minimum of two positive reports is required for acceptance.

Revision Stage

If reviewers request revisions, authors are notified and must submit a corrected version with tracked changes or highlighted modifications.

Section Editor & Reviewer Checks

Section editors and reviewers verify whether authors have adequately addressed revision requests.

Language Editing

  • Turkish Language Editing: Performed by the Turkish Language Editor and Editor-in-Chief within 15 days.

  • English Language Editing: Conducted by the English Language Editor within 15 days.

Editorial Board Review

After technical, academic, and language checks, the Editorial Board decides whether to publish the manuscript and in which issue. Decisions are made by majority vote; in case of a tie, the Editor-in-Chief’s decision prevails.

Typesetting and Layout

Accepted manuscripts undergo typesetting and layout editing and are sent to the author for approval within 15 days.

Indexing

Data of each published issue are transmitted to national and international indexing services within 15 days.