Applicants should have demonstrated expertise through publications, clinical practice, or research leadership. Reviewers are selected based on subject fit and the ability to provide timely, constructive feedback.

Reviews should focus on methods, data integrity, and clinical relevance. Provide clear major and minor recommendations.

Reviewers receive certificates and may be eligible for APC discounts based on service.

Manuscripts are confidential. Do not share data or use unpublished findings.

Provide actionable guidance and separate major from minor revisions for clarity.

Reviewers should disclose conflicts of interest and decline reviews when impartiality is compromised.

Begin with a brief summary, then list major issues followed by minor edits. This structure helps authors respond efficiently.

Reviews should be free of personal bias and sensitive to athlete and patient populations. Focus on evidence and clarity.

Confirm review invitations promptly and adhere to agreed deadlines to keep publication timelines on track.

Focus reviews on study design, data integrity, and clinical relevance. Provide balanced feedback that helps authors improve clarity and methodological rigor.

Use confidential comments to flag ethics or data integrity concerns for editors.

Keep expertise keywords current to improve reviewer matching and reduce delays.

Highlight major issues clearly and provide specific suggestions to support editorial decisions.

Maintain a respectful tone and focus critiques on evidence and methodology. Professional reviews improve author engagement.

Provide balanced feedback that recognizes strengths and identifies specific improvements. Maintain confidentiality and avoid using unpublished data for personal research.