Expert Review Form

📝 ARTICLE REVIEW FORM

Journal:Physical Education of Students

Manuscript ID:

Title:

Reviewer Name (optional):

Date:

Expert Review Form

You may use the button "Auto-Fill Random Answers" to simulate how the form works.

After that, please proceed with filling in your actual review responses. At the end, click "Calculate Quality Score", add your justification in the "Reviewer Comments" box, and finally press "Submit Review".

#	Criterion	Yes	No
Query 1 – Abstract
1.1	Is the aim of the study clearly stated in the abstract?
1.2	Are the methods of the study briefly and adequately described?
1.3	Are the main results summarized and relevant to the stated aim?
1.4	Are the conclusions logically derived from the results?
1.5	Does the abstract include all four required structural components: Background and Aim, Methods, Results, and Conclusions?
1.6	Is the abstract well-written and free from grammatical or stylistic issues?
1.7	Does the abstract meet the journal’s minimum word count of 250 words?
1.8	Does the abstract avoid use of first-person pronouns ("we", "our") in compliance with journal style?

#	Criterion	Yes	No
Query 2 – Introduction
2.1	Does the introduction clearly explain the relevance and context of the study?
2.2	Is the aim of the study explicitly stated in the final part of the introduction?
2.3	If applicable, is a hypothesis or research question clearly formulated?
2.4	Is there a logical progression from general background to specific focus?
2.5	Is the use of literature sufficient and up-to-date to justify the study?
2.6	Does the introduction avoid unnecessary repetition or overly broad information?

#	Criterion	Yes	No
Query 3 – Materials and Methods
3.1	Are the participants or sample clearly described, including size, characteristics, and inclusion/exclusion criteria?
3.2	Is the study design explicitly stated (e.g., randomized trial, observational study, cross-sectional)?
3.3	Are the procedures and measurements described in sufficient detail to allow replication?
3.4	Are ethical considerations mentioned (e.g., informed consent, ethics committee approval)?
3.5	Is the statistical analysis clearly described and appropriate for the study design?
3.6	Does the section ensure replicability by other researchers?

#	Criterion	Yes	No
Query 4 – Results
4.1	Are the results presented in a clear and logical sequence?
4.2	Are all key findings reported and relevant to the research aim?
4.3	Are tables and/or figures used appropriately to summarize data?
4.4	Are all tables and figures clearly titled, labeled, and referenced in the text?
4.5	Are any statistical results presented with appropriate values (e.g., p-values, confidence intervals)?
4.6	Does the section avoid interpretation or discussion of the results?

#	Criterion	Yes	No
Query 5 – Discussion
5.1	Are the study results interpreted logically and in line with the research objectives?
5.2	Are the findings compared with relevant previous studies?
5.3	Does the discussion highlight the significance or implications of the results?
5.4	Is a subsection or paragraph devoted to study limitations?
5.5	Are future research directions or practical applications discussed?
5.6	Is the section structured clearly and free from redundant content?

#	Criterion	Yes	No
Query 6 – Conclusions
6.1	Are the conclusions clearly linked to the results?
6.2	Do the authors avoid overgeneralizing the findings?
6.3	Are study limitations acknowledged or restated in the conclusion?
6.4	Are practical or theoretical implications of the findings discussed?
6.5	Is the conclusion concise and free from new information?

#	Criterion	Yes	No
Query 7 – Novelty of the Research
7.1	Does the study address a research question or problem that has not been fully explored before?
7.2	Are the methods, sample, or context different from previous similar studies?
7.3	Does the manuscript offer new theoretical, methodological, or empirical insights?
7.4	Is the originality of the work clearly articulated by the authors?
7.5	Does the study go beyond merely replicating existing research without innovation?

#	Criterion	Yes	No
Query 8 – Replicability of the Study
8.1	Are the participants or sample characteristics described in sufficient detail?
8.2	Are the procedures and instruments fully explained, including how data were collected?
8.3	Is the intervention or experimental process described step by step?
8.4	Are statistical methods clearly specified, including any software or parameters used?
8.5	Could another researcher replicate the study using the information provided?

#	Criterion	Yes	No
Query 9 – Pedagogical Orientation
9.1	Does the study aim to improve or explore teaching, learning, or coaching practices in physical training, sports preparation, or health-oriented physical activity?
9.2	Is there a methodological component that contributes to the design or evaluation of instructional, training, or developmental programs in sport or physical activity contexts?
9.3	Are the findings applicable to professionals, practitioners, athletes, or individuals engaged in structured physical or sport-based activity?
9.4	Is pedagogical theory, educational terminology, or learning psychology used to support the conceptual framework or interpretation?
9.5	Does the manuscript clearly state its relevance to instruction, skill acquisition, program development, or performance enhancement in physical or sport-related disciplines?

#	Criterion	Yes	No
Query 10 – Language and Style
10.1	Is the manuscript free from grammatical and typographic errors?
10.2	Is the writing style appropriate for an academic publication?
10.3	Are the sentences clear, concise, and logically structured?
10.4	Is technical terminology used correctly and consistently?
10.5	Are transitions between paragraphs and sections smooth and coherent?
10.6	Is the manuscript written in fluent, readable English throughout?

#	Criterion	Yes	No
Query 11 – Citation Coherence and Maturity
11.1	Calculate the SRR – the percentage of references from the last 5 years (target: ≥50%).
11.2	Check for the presence of 1–2 recent review articles (within the last 5 years).

Final Recommendation

Choose one:

Accept (≥ 85%)
Minor Revision (70–84%)
Major Revision (50–69%)
Reject (< 50%)

Reviewer Comments

💾 Save the filled form as a PDF using your browser's Print to PDF option and send it to the journal editorial office by email sportart@gmail.com.