Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, methodological rigor, and relevance to journal scope. All submissions undergo initial screening for ethics, originality, and reporting quality before peer review.

JSEM uses a structured review workflow that emphasizes methodological clarity and ethical compliance. Editors assign submissions to qualified reviewers and evaluate reports for consistency and relevance. Authors receive consolidated feedback and clear decisions.

Human subject research must include ethics committee approval and informed consent. Sports medicine studies should document safety monitoring and data privacy measures. Complaints and appeals are reviewed confidentially with documented outcomes to ensure fairness.

Editorial screening is followed by expert peer review. Reviewer identities are protected to support objective evaluation.

Sports medicine research must document consent, safety monitoring, and data privacy. Ethical compliance is required for publication.

Corrections or retractions are issued when needed and remain linked to the original article.

Editors and reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and recuse themselves when appropriate.

Use of AI tools for writing, analysis, or figures must be disclosed at submission. Authors remain responsible for accuracy and originality.

Authors may appeal decisions with a clear rationale and supporting evidence. Appeals are reviewed by senior editors.

Allegations of plagiarism or data fabrication are investigated according to established guidelines.

Manuscripts must include data availability statements. If data are restricted, access conditions should be described clearly and ethically.

We support responsible post publication discussion through corrections or updates when needed. Authors are expected to respond constructively.

Editorial decisions are independent of financial considerations. Acceptance is based solely on merit, ethics, and relevance to sports medicine.

JSEM follows international ethics standards, including COPE guidelines, for research integrity and participant safety. Manuscripts may be flagged for additional review if ethical concerns or data irregularities are detected. Authors may be asked to provide raw data or institutional confirmations.

Authors may appeal decisions with a clear rationale and supporting evidence. Appeals are reviewed by senior editors and documented for accountability. Corrections and retractions are issued when required and remain linked to the original article.

Editors select reviewers with subject expertise and no conflicts of interest. Reviewer performance is monitored.

Studies involving athlete or patient data must document privacy protections and access limitations.

Clear decision letters and published corrections support trust in the scholarly record.

Reviewer performance is monitored for quality and timeliness. This helps maintain consistent review standards across submissions.

Submissions are checked for ethics statements, data availability, and conflict disclosures before peer review.

Editorial policies are reviewed regularly to align with evolving ethics standards and reporting guidance.

Editorial decisions are made independently of payment status, advertising, or sponsorship. Manuscripts are evaluated on scientific merit, ethical compliance, and relevance to sports medicine. This independence protects the credibility of published research and strengthens trust among readers and clinicians.

Current policies are available on the journal site and updated as standards evolve.

Editors communicate key policy expectations during review to ensure compliance and reduce revision cycles.

Authors may contact the editorial office for clarification on ethics policies or data requirements before submission.

Questions about ethics, data, or conflicts can be addressed by the editorial office before submission.

Complete ethics and conflict statements are required for peer review.