Peer Review Process

Theory and Practice of Physical Culture uses double-blind peer-review. This means that the identity of the reviewer is unknown to the author and vice versa. After the moderation stage, each manuscript is sent for peer-review to at least two anonymous experts.

1. Expertise of the article. Within 5 working days from receipt of the manuscript its initial assessment for compliance with the topic and requirements of the Journal is performed. If any discrepancies with the requirements are found, the author(s) will be notified and given the reasons for the rejection. Articles rejected at this stage are not reviewed.

2. External and internal review. External review: if the manuscript is considered relevant to the topic of the Journal and its requirements, it is sent for review to two external reviewers. Internal review is performed by the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief and science editor.
2.1. The decision on assignment of an external reviewer is made by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief.
2.2. External review is performed by recognized experts of the relevant field. Reviewers report the scientific, financial or any other relationship with the authors and editors of the journal. Review of the articles is performed on a voluntary and gratuitous basis.
2.3. The manuscript is sent to external reviewers without mentioning authors and their organizations (blind review).
2.4. Reviewers are informed that manuscripts sent to them are the property of authors and are classified as confidential information. Reviewers must refrain from illegal use (including copying) of the materials sent to them for review.
2.5. Within 21 days from receipt of the manuscript reviewers should render a reasoned opinion on the possibility of its publication in the present form, and present any claims about the manuscript in writing.

The review highlights the consistency of the article content with the topic stated in the title, the consistency of the article with the modern achievements of science and theoretical knowledge, evaluating language, style, arrangement of the material, clarity and informativeness of tables, charts, figures and completeness and correctness of literature citations, and advantages and disadvantages of the article. The review also indicates any amendments that should be made by the author.

Reviewer's conclusion:

• the article can be published and does not require revision
• the article can be published after minor revision by authors
• the article cannot be published owing to poor quality, inconsistency with the requirements of article design or topic of the journal, ethical violations, signs of falsification of results or other reasons.

2.6. In the case of the reviewers approving publication of the manuscript in the journal, the author(s) will be notified via e-mail that the manuscript is being prepared for publication.
2.7. If the review indicates that corrections to the manuscript are need, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) for revision with the reviews attached and a request to take into account the reviewers’ comments when preparing a revised version of the manuscript. Author(s) must provide responses to all the reviewers’ questions, comments and suggestions. In the case of a disagreement with a reviewer's opinion, the author(s) should clearly justify their point of view. The author(s) responses to reviews must be submitted to the editor within 4 weeks from receipt of the reviews. In the case of absence of a response from the author(s) to a review after this time, the manuscript is considered to have been withdrawn by the author(s). Manuscripts revised by author(s) and the responses to a review are sent to reviewers for evaluation.
2.8. The text of a negative review is sent to the author(s) via e-mail for information.

3. Evaluation by the editorial boardis performed for articles which are being prepared for publication in the next issue of the journal. Editorial Board meetings are held once every 2 months. The editorial board approves the list of articles to be published in the current issue of the Journal. The editorial board has the right to reject externally peer-reviewed articles or to send an article for additional external review. The decision of the editorial board is registered in the record of the meeting.

4. Final decision on the possibility of manuscript publication is made by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief. All manuscripts that receive positive reviews and approval from the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief are submitted for scientific and literary processing, editing, and publication. The editors reserve the right to edit (including reduction) submitted articles and their titles.

5. Before online publication the made-up article is sent to corresponding author in *.pdf format by email to proof read for misprints in the text, tables, and figures. Within 48 hours sending the author this e-mail, the author must send a response to the Journal editor. The absence of the author's response is regarded as agreement with the submitted version of the article.

6. Reviews are kept in the editorial office for five years.

7. The editors send the author(s) of submitted manuscripts copies of reviews or a reasoned rejection, and also assure to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receiving a relevant request.

8. Manuscripts will be rejected if:

• they are not designed in accordance with the requirements of the Journal, and if authors refuse to revise the manuscript;
• the authors do not follow the reviewer’s and editor’s constructive instructions or do not meet them with counterarguments.

Rejected articles can be re-submitted to the editor after they have been revised by the author(s). They are treated as a new submission according to the standard procedure.