Review Process

Peer Review Process – Evaluation Principles

  1. Eligibility:
    Only manuscripts that have not been previously published and are not currently under consideration by another journal—and that have been approved by all authors—will be accepted for review.

  2. Plagiarism Screening:
    Submitted manuscripts that pass the initial check are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate (or an equivalent software).

  3. Double-Blind Review Process:
    Genç Spor Akademi Dergisi employs a double-blind peer review system. Initially, all submissions are evaluated by the editor for suitability with the journal’s scope. Manuscripts deemed appropriate are then sent to at least two independent expert reviewers for a detailed assessment of their scientific quality.

  4. Impartiality:
    The Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts regardless of the authors’ ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious beliefs, or political views. The Editor-in-Chief ensures that all manuscripts undergo a fair double-blind peer review.

  5. Conflict of Interest:
    The Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors, or reviewers.

  6. Editorial Responsibility:
    The editor is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. The editor’s decision is final.

  7. Editorial Exclusions:
    Editors shall not participate in decisions on manuscripts written by themselves, their family members, or colleagues, or on manuscripts related to products or services with which the editor is affiliated. Any such submission is subject to the journal’s standard procedures.

Confidentiality and Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Reviewers must keep all information regarding the submitted manuscript confidential until it is published. If any copyright violations or plagiarism issues are identified on the part of the authors, reviewers must report them to the editor.
  • If a reviewer feels unqualified to assess the manuscript or is unable to provide feedback within the stipulated time, they should notify the editor and request to be excused from the review process.
  • Throughout the evaluation, the editor must clearly state that the manuscripts sent for review are the intellectual property of the authors and are shared under privileged communication. Reviewers and editorial board members must not discuss the manuscripts with any third party. The anonymity of reviewers must be maintained.

Review Process

Type of Peer Review

  • Double-Blind Review:
    After plagiarism screening, manuscripts that meet the requirements are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief based on originality, methodology, the significance of the subject matter, and alignment with the journal’s scope. The editor ensures that each manuscript undergoes a fair double-blind peer review. If the manuscript meets the formal requirements, it is sent to at least two domestic and/or international reviewers. If necessary, reviewers may recommend revisions, and the manuscript may be approved for publication only after the required changes have been made by the authors.

Review Timeline

  • Pre-Publication:

    • Author–Reviewer Interaction: The editors mediate all communications between reviewers and authors.
    • Review Duration: For research articles submitted to Genç Spor Akademi Dergisi, the time from submission to the initial decision is approximately 25–45 days.

  • Plagiarism Check:
    Yes – iThenticate is used to screen manuscripts for plagiarism.

  • Number of Reviewers per Manuscript:
    Minimum Two.

  • Allowed Review Period:
    10 days (this period may be extended by an additional 5 days if necessary).

  • Decision Criteria:
    A manuscript requires a minimum of two positive reviewer recommendations from the reviewers to be accepted by the editor for publication.

  • Ethics Violations:
    If reviewers suspect any misuse of research or ethical violations in the manuscript, they must inform the editor immediately.

The editor is responsible for taking the necessary actions in accordance with COPE guidelines. On the day a research manuscript is submitted, the Editor-in-Chief conducts a preliminary review and, if the manuscript appears promising for further evaluation, forwards it to an Associate Editor for a detailed assessment. Typically, the Associate Editor reviews the entire manuscript. Although we aim to reach a decision within 60 days for all submissions, an initial decision is usually provided within a few days of submission. If Genç Spor Akademi Dergisi determines that the manuscript is not suitable for the journal, we will promptly inform the authors so that they may submit their work elsewhere. Common reasons for rejection at this stage include insufficient originality or the subject matter falling outside the journal’s scope.

For research articles, the next step is a review by the Editorial Board. Board members will read the manuscript and discuss its significance, originality, and scientific quality. Our editorial decisions focus primarily on the research question. Even if a manuscript’s subject is relevant, timely, and important, it may be rejected if it lacks a clear research question. Additionally, manuscripts with serious flaws will be rejected. At the beginning of the board meeting, all participants are asked to declare any potential conflicts of interest. Anyone with a significant conflict either leaves the discussion or speaks only after all others have commented.

If your manuscript is deemed suitable for Journal of Young Sport Academy, the Section Editor will send it to two external reviewers. These reviewers provide recommendations to the editors, who then make the final decision. We ask reviewers to confirm their reports and to disclose any conflicts of interest related to the manuscript. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief after the external review process. In cases where serious research misconduct is suspected, the manuscript may also be reviewed by the journal’s ethics editor and additional third parties deemed necessary by the editor.

We aim to provide a final decision on publication within 60 days of submission. If a revision is required, authors are typically requested to resubmit their revised manuscript within the following month.

Genç Spor Akademi Dergisi is committed to open access for both readers and authors. All published articles are freely available online.

If you notice any errors in your published article, please email the Editor-in-Chief, who will inform you whether corrections will be made.

Reviewer Process for Editorial Board Submissions

Editorial articles and analytical papers written by the journal’s own editors are not subjected to external peer review. However, original research articles are sent for double-blind external peer review by at least two reviewers. During this period, the roles of the internal editors are suspended.

Authors’ Responsibilities

  • Authors must adhere to the principles of research and publication ethics.
  • Authors should not attempt to publish the same work in multiple journals.
  • Authors must fully and accurately cite all works referenced in their manuscript.

Editor’s Responsibilities

  • The editor evaluates manuscripts solely based on scientific content, without consideration of the authors’ ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious beliefs, or political views.
  • The editor ensures that all manuscripts submitted for publication undergo a fair double-blind peer review and that all related information remains confidential until publication.
  • The editor informs reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential and represent privileged communication.
  • Reviewers and the editorial board must not discuss manuscripts with third parties, and reviewer anonymity must be maintained.
  • In certain cases, the editor may share a reviewer’s comments with other reviewers to clarify a point.
  • The editor is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication, including issuing correction notices or retracting articles when necessary.
  • The editor prohibits any conflicts of interest among authors, editors, and reviewers and holds exclusive authority over reviewer assignment and the final publication decision, which rests with the Editorial Board.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

  • Reviewers must have no conflicts of interest with the research, the authors, or any funding agencies involved.
  • Reviewers’ evaluations must be objective.
  • The language and tone used by reviewers must not be derogatory toward the authors.
  • Reviewers must maintain confidentiality regarding all aspects of the manuscript until it is published.
  • If reviewers detect copyright violations or plagiarism, they must report it to the editor immediately.
  • Reviewers who feel unqualified or cannot complete the review within the designated timeframe should withdraw from the review process.

When conducting their evaluations, reviewers should consider the following:

  • Does the manuscript present new and significant information?
  • Is the abstract clear and accurate in describing the content of the manuscript?
  • Is the methodology sound, coherent, and clearly defined?
  • Are the interpretations and conclusions supported by the findings?
  • Are sufficient references to previous studies provided?
  • Is the quality of the language acceptable?

Initial Screening and Plagiarism Check

The manuscript is first evaluated by the editor for compliance with the journal’s publication principles, academic writing standards, and the APA System, and is then subjected to a plagiarism check using iThenticate or Turnitin. The preliminary screening is completed within a maximum of 30 days. The similarity index must be below 20%. Even if the similarity index is as low as 1%, improper citation or quotation practices may still constitute plagiarism. Authors must be well-versed in and carefully adhere to the rules regarding citation and quotation:

  • Quotation/Extracts:
    If a passage is taken verbatim from a source—including punctuation—it must be enclosed in double quotation marks, followed by a footnote with the source. Any quotations within the quoted text should be marked with single quotation marks. If a direct quotation exceeds three lines (or more than 40 words), it should be presented as a separate indented paragraph using a font size one point smaller than the main text. Any omissions within a direct quotation should be indicated by an ellipsis (…) without altering the original meaning. Failing to properly enclose a direct quotation in quotation marks and merely listing the source at the end is not acceptable. Non-compliance with these rules may result in allegations of plagiarism.

Subject Editor’s Review

After passing the initial screening and plagiarism check, the manuscript is reviewed by the relevant Subject Editor for issues related to academic language and style. This review is completed within a maximum of 30 days.

Peer Review (Academic Evaluation)

Manuscripts that have passed the Subject Editor’s review are then sent to at least two external reviewers who have published doctoral theses, books, or articles in the relevant subject area. The peer review is conducted under strict double-blind conditions. Reviewers are required to provide their opinions either by marking up the manuscript or by submitting an online review form with a minimum of 150 words explaining their assessment. Authors are given the opportunity to respond to reviewer comments if they disagree with any aspects of the evaluation. The Subject Editor facilitates confidential communication between the authors and the reviewers. If both reviewer reports are positive, the manuscript is recommended for publication and forwarded to the Editorial Board for a final decision. In cases where one reviewer expresses a negative opinion, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer. A manuscript can be accepted for publication only with the positive recommendation of at least two reviewers. For evaluations of books, symposium proceedings, or doctoral thesis abstracts, decisions are made based on the assessments of at least two internal reviewers (the relevant Subject Editors and/or Editorial Board members).

Revision Stage

If reviewers request revisions, their reports are forwarded to the authors, who are then asked to make the necessary corrections. Authors must make the revisions in a Microsoft Word document with “Track Changes” enabled or indicate changes in red. The revised manuscript is then resubmitted to the Subject Editor.

  • Subject Editor Check:
    The Subject Editor verifies whether the requested revisions have been made.

  • Reviewer Check:
    The reviewer who requested the revision confirms that the changes have been appropriately implemented.

  • Turkish Language Check:
    Manuscripts that have passed the peer review are further examined by the Turkish Language Editor and the Editor-in-Chief. If necessary, the authors are asked to make additional corrections. This check is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

  • English Language Check:
    Manuscripts that have passed the Turkish language check are then reviewed by the English Language Editor. If further corrections are needed, the authors will be asked to make them. This check is also completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Editorial Board Review

Manuscripts that have successfully passed the technical, academic, and language checks are reviewed by the Editorial Board, which decides whether to publish the manuscript and, if so, in which issue it will appear. Decisions are made by a majority vote. In the event of a tie, the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

Typesetting and Layout

Manuscripts approved for publication by the Editorial Board are then typeset and formatted for publication. The formatted version is sent to the author for final review. This stage is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Submission of Data to National and International Indexes

Data regarding the published issue is forwarded to the relevant indexing services within 15 days.

This comprehensive description of our peer review process and evaluation principles ensures that submissions are rigorously and fairly assessed while maintaining confidentiality and integrity throughout the review process.