Aims and Scope

Studia sportiva is the research journal of the Faculty of Sports Studies, Masaryk University published since 2007. The journal is focused on the topic of Sports Sciences, based on Kinanthropology and its related disciplines (see paragraph below).

The aim of the journal is to provide the most scientific, and research-based topics emerging in the field of exercise science. The journal publishes articles concerning basic and applied sciences in sport: exercise physiology; fitness and performance testing in sport; sports performance and analysis; the acute and chronic effects of sports nutrition and supplementation strategies on body composition; physical performance and metabolism; other biomedical aspects of sport and exercise and as well as in social aspects of physical education and sport (psychology, philosophy, sociology, sports pedagogy, etc.).

The journal is divided into 3 sections - KINESIOLOGY section (fitness and performance testing in sport; sports performance and analysis; the acute and chronic effects of sports nutrition and supplementation strategies on body composition; physical performance and metabolism; other biomedical aspects of sport and exercise), SOCIAL SCIENCES section (social aspects of physical education and sport (psychology, philosophy, sociology, sports pedagogy, etc.) and STUDENT section is aimed at PhD students and promising Bachelor and Masters students falling under the scope of the journal.

Journal Studia Sportiva is indexed in Scopus database and in the European Reference Index for the Humanities and the Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS).

Peer Review Process

Original manuscripts for the journal STUDIA SPORTIVA have to be submitted in the English language.

All manuscripts will be revised by two reviewers (students´ manuscripts are reviewed by one reviewer), and articles will be published by their favorable opinion. In the case of the negative opinion of the two reviewers, the article is passed for assessment to the third reviewer. The author will be immediately notified of the reviewers´ decision.

Reviewers are paid 1000 CZK for one review (or 40 Euros) after the review process is completed.

The review is done as a DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW!

Authors are not required to send any payment for submitting an article.

There is a processing fee for publication of the reviewed article - 50 EUR.

The author is responsible for language accuracy. Submitted papers will undergo editorial revision in the use of spelling, grammar, and stylistics. All changes in the text, however, must be approved by the author.

Manuscripts should be sent electronically as editable documents formatted in RTF or DOC.

Pictures, tables, and graphs should be inserted in manuscript in the desired place.

We accept papers with references cited using the APA citation format (Seventh edition, 2019).

The journal is published twice a year, the deadlines for contributors are January 15 and June 15.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides instant open access to its content on the principle that free access to research results promotes greater global exchange of knowledge.

The website and the content fall under the CREATIVE COMMONS license - Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. We are free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform and build upon the material), under the following terms of attribution (giving appropriate credit and not using the material for commercial purposes).

Editor Responsibilities

• is responsible for the anonymous, unbiased, and transparent review process
• is responsible for the time frame in which the review process is progressing
• does not discriminate on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, a political declaration, ethnic or geographic origin of the author (s)
• maintains confidentiality; manuscripts are given to the people working on review process (and technical parts of the journal)
• makes sure the chosen reviewers are qualified to asses the chosen topic in manuscript
• reacts immediately if there is any problem reported by the authors.
• if some errors occur, editors decide if the manuscript will be corrected or revoked.

Reviewers Information

The Process

1. Author creates a submisson.
2. First step is internal review by technical editor to make sure author guidelines were followed. Submission is either rejected or accepted for further consideration.
3. As a part of an internal review, technical editor makes similary check powered by iThenticate (service provided by Crossref).
4. If rejected, author receives an email about the decision and its reasoning. Authors are always welcome to resubmit after mamking necessary corrections.
5. If accepted, submission is sent to a section editor. They assess the manuscript and either reject or accept it.
6. If rejected, author receives an email about the decision with the list of reasons for a rejection. Authors may resubmit if the reasons for initial rejection are rectified.
7. If accepted, external review process begins. Section editor sends the manuscript to reviewers who are best suited for the contents of the submission. 
8. Reviews are assessed by the section editor and submission can be either - rejected, accepted, accepted with minor corrections, or rejected/accepted after major corrections when the manuscript goes back to reviewers for the second round of evaluation.
9. If accepted, manuscript goes to production lead by technical editor. 
10. Before publishing, authors receive their article for final round of checks. 
11. Article is then published. 

Participation in 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.

Capability

Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research presented in a manuscript or knows that prompt review will be impossible to deliver should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.

Confidentiality

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. Refviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment 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

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. 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.

Instructions for Reviewers

The individual submissions fall into three main sections - kinesiology, social sciences, and student section. Prior to the start of the review process, editors are assigned to decide on the next step for the manuscript (they consult with editors or editorial board, if necessary). After receiving the manuscript, the editor will ensure it is anonymized; then the editor selects the reviewers. In the course of two weeks, reviewers will fill out the predefined form with feedback for the authors of the article. They formulate their scientific opinion and recommendations in two weeks:

a)       accept submission

b)      revision required

c)       resubmit for review

d)      decline submission

Reviewers may add further comments to their recommendation as a new file if they deems necessary. If that happens, editor of the section makes sure the file is anonymous before making it available for the authors to see (to ensure double blind peer review). The editor then informs the author about the decision; in the case of two reviews with the contradicting conclusion, the third reviewer will be invited. The author has all the relevant information available for each review to make adequate changes to improve the manuscript. Areas that the reviewers can comment on are as follows:

• the subject of the paper, originality (relevancy to the profile of the journal and the selected section, topicality of the issue)

• content (concordance of the title, abstract and content of the contribution)

• professional level (breakdown of the contribution, adequate content from the theoretical and methodical point of view, clear definition of the purpose)

• formal level

• linguistic and stylistic level

• other comments (for editors and authors of the article)

• final decision

Reviewers are paid 1000 Czk for one review (or 40 Euros) after the review process is completed.

The review is done as a DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW!

Other responsibilities:

• unbiased approach
• meeting the deadline given by the editors to submit the review
• after requesting the review, they should reply responsibly whether they are able to process the review or not, according to their own presumption about the chosen manuscript
• to maintain the confidentiality of information 
• recognize any conflict or conflict of interests
• inform about any suspicion when reviewing the manuscript – missing literature, references, suspicion of the inadequate list of author names (“ghost” or “gift” authors, the unclear contribution of the authors).

Authors Information

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. 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.

Data Access and Retention

Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data if practicable 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.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

List of Sources

Proper reference to the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

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 appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must identify these in the manuscript.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts 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.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their 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.

Other authors responsibilities:

• citations according to APA
• critical evaluation of the significance references described in the manuscript
• authors who are students are respected as equal authors or co-authors
• authors have to archive research data related to their manuscript if any problems arise and we might need to document their authenticity. Authenticity and verity are mandatory.
• if authors find any mistakes, inaccuracies or errors, they are required to inform us about the fact immediately; the text will be either corrected or revoked. 

Publisher Information

Editorial Autonomy

Studia Sportiva journal has clearly defined the role of publishers and editors, to ensure the autonomy of editorial decisions, without being affected by advertisers or other partners from the commercial sector.

Intellectual Property and Copyright

We protect intellectual property and copyrights of Studia Sportiva journal, its brands, authors and publishing partners by presenting and keeping the final published version of each article. Studia Sportiva ensures the integrity and transparency of the various published articles with regard to conflicts of interest, financing publications and research, publishing and research ethics, research and publishing cases of misconduct, confidentiality, authorship, corrections, clarifications and articles withdrawal and timely publishing.

Scientific Misconduct

In the event of suspected or proven scientific misconduct, fraud or plagiarism, the publisher will undertake, in close cooperation with the editors, all necessary steps to clarify the situation and correct the article. Part of this process is the immediate publication of a notice of correction, or, in the most serious cases, withdrawal of the works in question.

Responsibilities

• oversees that all of the above is followed according to the rules and responsibilities
• collaborates when solving any risen problems, collaborates when implementing new principles, takes an active part in the publication process, is part of the consultations.

TRANSPARENCY

a)       Author's credit – if the submission has more than one author, their participation should be clearly defined; the manuscript should be written and followed by critical evaluation by the authors, with final approval for the submitted version to the journal (all authors need to be conscious of their participation, and everyone must agree on the chosen journal).

b)      Contributors – we require the contributors to provide information on how and in what way every author contributed to the submitted article (contributors will receive a table that has to be filled out with the signature of every contributing author).

c)       Acknowledgments – it is a necessary part of the manuscript, especially if there is a contribution by an individual who is not listed as one of the authors (this individual needs to be informed and they have to agree to the submission).

d)      Corresponding author – it is always the one who is communicating directly with the editors.

e)      Sequence of authors – it has to be agreed upon by everyone, the most important author (the one contributing the most), is the first one. First author also takes the full responsibility for the article and its contents.

f)       “Ghost authors” and “Gift authors” are not allowed to publish (to be a part of the submitted article). “Ghost authors” – someone who did not contribute to the manuscript at all, “Gift authors” – someone who is part of the author line up as a “gift.”

g)       Funding information – any information about funding needs to be described clearly.

h)      If needed, declarations about competing interests are added.

i)        If manuscripts use any material falling under the copyright, the documents allowing authors to use the mentioned publication need to be presented.

j)        Information about any previous submissions of this article needs to be presented.

k)       Confirmation that the manuscript was sent only to Studia sportiva.

l)        After the successful review process, every manuscript is sent for copyediting. Authors will get their contribution for proofreading, any edits must be returned within three days at the latest. If the author does not reply, the manuscript is considered authorized. Changes relate only to quote errors, not to the content of the text, or tables, charts, and attachments.

m) If the authors recieve a permission granted by the ethics committee, they are required to send it to Studia sportiva as soon as possible. More information about publication ethics can be found here.

By submitting the article to the Studia sportia journal, authors confirm that:

1. I have been authorized by my co-authors to submit the article for the review process and in case of a positive result, its publication.
2. My co-authors and I agree that if the article is accepted for publication, it will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0.

Disclaimer
The statements and opinions found in the articles of Studia Sportiva belong to the individual authors, not editors, reviewers or publishers.

Journal History

The scientific reviewed journal Studia sportiva is published by the Faculty of Sports Studies of Masaryk University since 2007.