Peer Review Process

All submitted manuscripts to the Damu Journal of Sport Sciences (DJSS) undergo a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scientific integrity of published research. The peer-review process assists the Editorial Board in making editorial decisions and helps authors improve the quality of their manuscripts through constructive feedback.

The journal adopts a double-blind peer-review system, meaning that the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected at the discretion of the Editorial Board according to the following criteria:

  • Reviewers must have recognized expertise in the subject area of the submitted manuscript.
  • Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors.
  • Reviewers must not have recent collaborative publications with any of the authors.
  • Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest.
  • All reviewers work independently and remain unaware of each other’s identities.

Review Procedure

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

If the reviewers’ recommendations differ, the Editor may assign additional reviewers to reach a final editorial decision.

During the review process, the Editor may request authors to provide additional data or clarifications, including raw data, when necessary to assess the scientific merit of the manuscript.

All materials provided during the review process are treated as strictly confidential and must not be used for personal advantage.

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports and the overall scientific quality of the manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Editor makes the final editorial decision.

The possible editorial decisions are:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Quality Assurance

The Editorial Board is responsible for ensuring the quality, integrity, fairness, and consistency of the peer-review process.

If authors raise justified concerns regarding the objectivity or quality of a review, the journal may assign additional reviewers to ensure a fair and academically sound evaluation.

Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a formal and reasoned appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals must provide specific grounds and address any factual or procedural errors in the editorial decision.

The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and may seek additional independent advice where appropriate. The decision on the appeal is final.