Journal Sport Science, Health and Tourism of Mandalika (JONTAK) is committed to a fair, rigorous, independent, and transparent editorial evaluation of scholarly manuscripts in sport science, physical education, health, recreation, tourism, and related disciplines. Peer review supports editorial decisions and helps authors improve the accuracy, clarity, originality, and scholarly contribution of their work.

JONTAK applies a double-blind peer-review model involving at least two suitably qualified reviewers for manuscripts progressing to external review. The process follows the stages described in the journal's published Peer Review Process and is informed by the ethical principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Acceptance is never guaranteed by submission or by completion of peer review.

1. Manuscript Submission and Initial Editorial Screening

Manuscripts should be submitted through JONTAK's official Open Journal Systems (OJS) submission platform. An alternative submission channel may be used only when expressly authorized by the editorial office. Authors are responsible for following the Author Guidelines, providing complete files and declarations, and preparing any anonymized material required for double-blind review.

The editorial office first checks whether the submission fits the journal's focus and scope, meets basic formatting and reporting requirements, and contains the information needed for assessment. It also screens for significant methodological deficiencies and potential originality or publication-ethics concerns. Manuscripts that pass this stage undergo similarity screening, including the use of Turnitin where applicable. A similarity report is evaluated in context and does not, by itself, establish plagiarism.

2. Editor-in-Chief Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor assesses whether the manuscript is sufficiently original, relevant, scientifically credible, and significant to proceed to external peer review. The editor may return an incomplete submission for correction or reject a manuscript without external review when it is clearly outside the journal's scope, lacks adequate scholarly merit, or contains fundamental problems that make further review inappropriate.

The initial decision must be based on the work's intellectual content and applicable editorial criteria, without discrimination or improper influence. A desk rejection does not imply that an external reviewer has evaluated the manuscript.

3. Reviewer Selection and Double-Blind Review

For manuscripts advancing to peer review, the handling editor invites at least two reviewers with appropriate expertise in the manuscript's subject matter, research approach, and methods. Reviewers are selected on the basis of relevant competence, independence, availability, and the absence of disqualifying conflicts of interest. If invited reviewers decline or cannot complete the assessment, suitable alternatives may be invited.

Under double-blind review, author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors. Authors must follow anonymization instructions and avoid identifying information in the review file where possible. Reviewers who recognize an author or identify a potential competing interest must promptly notify the editor, who will determine whether reassignment is necessary.

4. Review Evaluation and Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript's relevance to JONTAK, originality, significance, research question, methodological appropriateness, data analysis or interpretive rigor, validity of conclusions, reporting transparency, quality of references, and clarity of presentation. Where relevant, they should also consider participant safety, ethical approval, informed consent, and the responsible handling of research data in sport, health, or tourism contexts.

Review reports should be objective, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive. Reviewers are expected to respond within the agreed timeframe, disclose competing interests, keep the manuscript and its data confidential, and refrain from using unpublished information for personal benefit. They must not share the manuscript or upload confidential material to external AI services without the journal's explicit authorization and appropriate safeguards. Suspected research or publication misconduct must be communicated confidentially to the editor rather than treated as a proven allegation.

5. Editorial Assessment and Decision-Making

After the reviewers return their reports, the handling editor and Editor-in-Chief consider the assessments together with the journal's standards. Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not replace, editorial judgment. If the reviews differ substantially or specialist questions remain unresolved, the editor may invite an additional reviewer or seek further clarification.

The editorial decision may be acceptance, minor revision, major revision with further assessment, or rejection. Authors will receive the decision and relevant anonymized reviewer comments through the journal's official communication channel. The decision should provide sufficient reasons and, where revisions are requested, indicate the issues that must be addressed. Manuscripts requiring revision are not considered accepted.

6. Manuscript Revision and Re-Review

Authors invited to revise must submit an updated manuscript and a clear point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments within the deadline stated in the decision letter or an agreed extension. The response should explain how each concern was addressed and identify the corresponding changes. When a recommendation is not followed, authors should provide a reasoned scholarly justification.

Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or to other qualified reviewers for further evaluation. Minor revisions may be verified by the handling editor when external reassessment is unnecessary. Additional rounds of revision may be requested. Failure to respond adequately, persistent methodological deficiencies, or failure to meet an agreed deadline without explanation may result in rejection or administrative closure of the submission.

7. Final Acceptance and Publication Preparation

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately delegated editor makes the final acceptance decision after considering the peer reviews, revisions, ethical requirements, and overall suitability for the journal. Editorial decisions must remain independent of any article processing or publication charges, institutional relationships, or personal interests.

An accepted manuscript proceeds to copyediting, layout, author proof review, and online publication according to JONTAK's production procedures. Authors remain responsible for checking the accuracy of the final text, tables, figures, affiliations, and declarations. A manuscript should not be described as accepted until the editorial office has issued an explicit acceptance decision.

8. Confidentiality, Communication, Appeals, and Recordkeeping

Editors and reviewers must respect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and the double-blind process. Reviewer identities and confidential editorial communications must not be disclosed without appropriate authorization. Authors, reviewers, and editors should communicate through the designated editorial channels and act respectfully throughout the process. Where delays occur, the editorial office should provide a reasonable update when requested.

Authors may submit a written, evidence-based appeal or complaint through JONTAK's official editorial contact. Appeals will be considered on their merits and, where feasible, assessed by an editor without a relevant conflict of interest; an appeal does not guarantee reversal of a decision. Concerns involving reviewer misconduct, undisclosed competing interests, or other publication-ethics violations will be handled under the journal's applicable ethical policies and relevant COPE guidance. Appropriate records of reviews, decisions, revisions, and appeals will be retained securely.