Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

PITUDUH: Journal of Physical Education, Innovation, Teach Universal Development, and Health employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality and integrity of all published research.

Review Stages

  1. Initial Screening: All submitted manuscripts are first reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief for scope relevance, originality, and adherence to the journal's author guidelines. Manuscripts not meeting basic criteria are desk-rejected without further review.
  2. Double-Blind Review: Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Both the authors' and reviewers' identities are kept confidential throughout the process.
  3. Editorial Decision: Based on reviewers' recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
  4. Revision and Re-review: Authors are given the opportunity to revise their manuscripts based on reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
  5. Final Decision: After satisfactory revisions, the Editor-in-Chief issues a final acceptance. The manuscript then proceeds to copyediting, typesetting, and publication.

Review Timeline

The typical peer review process takes approximately 4–8 weeks from submission to the initial editorial decision. Authors are updated on the status of their manuscripts at each stage of the process.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the relevant subject area. PITUDUH maintains a diverse pool of qualified reviewers from academic and professional institutions worldwide. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, unbiased, and timely evaluations.

Ethical Considerations

All parties involved in the peer review process are expected to adhere to the highest ethical standards. Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest and maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscripts they review. Authors are expected to respond to reviewer comments professionally and transparently.