Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process
INSPIREE: Indonesian Sport Innovation Review applies peer review to ensure published works meet standards of originality, methodological rigor, clarity, and ethical compliance. This page explains how manuscripts are handled from submission to decision.
Default model: Double-blind peer review
Typical reviewers: 2 independent reviewers
Last updated: January 02, 2026
Policy owner: INSPIRETECH GLOBAL INSIGHT & DPE Universitas Pahlawan
ETHICS GUIDANCE
Publication-Ethics Alignment
INSPIREE’s peer-review practices are aligned with broadly recognized publication-ethics guidance, including the COPE Core Practices and related COPE resources (for reference and best-practice guidance).
1
Review Model
  • Default model: Double-blind peer review (authors and reviewers are anonymous to each other).
  • Number of reviewers: typically 2 independent reviewers (additional reviewers may be invited when needed).
  • Who is reviewed: research articles and other eligible article types as specified by the journal.
2
Editorial Workflow (Step-by-Step)
Stage A — Submission & Administrative Check
Typical time: ≈ 1–3 working days
The editorial office checks completeness (manuscript file, metadata, references, figures/tables, and required statements). Submissions may be returned for technical corrections before editorial screening.
Stage B — Editorial Screening / Desk Review
Typical time: ≈ up to 7 working days
The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor assesses:
  • fit with journal scope and article type
  • novelty and contribution
  • basic methodological and reporting adequacy
  • clarity of writing and structure
  • presence of required ethical statements (when applicable)
Manuscripts may be rejected at desk review if out of scope, scientifically weak, or not meeting minimum requirements.
Stage C — Integrity Checks
Timing: parallel with Stage B / before external review
  • Similarity screening: evaluated contextually (e.g., legitimate overlap in methods and properly cited quotations).
  • Ethics documentation: editors may request ethics approval and consent details (humans/animals/sensitive data).
  • COI & funding disclosures: checked when applicable.
Stage D — External Peer Review
Typical time: ≈ 2–4 weeks (adjustable)
Reviewers are selected based on:
  • subject-matter expertise
  • no conflict of interest with authors/institutions/sponsors
  • availability within the expected timeline
Reviewers provide constructive feedback focusing on originality, methods/analysis, reporting quality (tables/figures), conclusions supported by data, and ethics/disclosures.
Stage E — Editorial Decision
Based on reviewer reports and editorial assessment, decisions include:
  • Accept
  • Minor Revision (usually one round)
  • Major Revision (may require re-review)
  • Reject
If reviewer opinions diverge substantially, an additional reviewer or editorial board member may be consulted.
Stage F — Revision Handling
For revisions, authors must submit:
  • a revised manuscript (tracked changes recommended), and
  • a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer/editor comment was addressed.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, especially after major revision.
Stage G — Acceptance & Production
Accepted papers proceed to copyediting, layout, proofreading, and publication. The journal may request final clarifications to ensure accuracy, transparency, and compliance with journal policies.
3
Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest
  • Confidentiality: manuscripts and peer-review correspondence are confidential. Reviewers must not share or use unpublished content for personal advantage.
  • Conflicts of interest: reviewers and editors must decline handling a manuscript if a conflict exists (competitive, collaborative, financial, or personal).
4
Reviewer Ethics (Summary)
INSPIREE expects reviewers to provide objective, respectful, and evidence-based reviews, declare conflicts of interest, and complete reviews on time. For broader ethical guidance, reviewers may consult: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
5
How to Prepare an Anonymous Manuscript (Double-Blind)
  • Remove author names, affiliations, emails, ORCID, acknowledgements, and funding identifiers from the main manuscript file (place them in metadata or a separate title page if required).
  • Replace self-identifying citations with neutral phrasing where appropriate (e.g., “Author, Year”) and restore full details after review if requested.
  • Check file properties/metadata for author names (Word/PDF properties) and remove them before upload.
  • Avoid institution-specific identifiers in figure labels, file names, and supplementary files unless essential.
6
Misconduct Allegations and Post-Publication Issues
Concerns about plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, unethical research, authorship manipulation, or peer-review manipulation are handled under the journal’s Publication Ethics & Misconduct Policy. When necessary, the journal follows structured best-practice approaches referenced by COPE guidance resources.
7
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may submit appeals or complaints regarding editorial handling or peer review by email to:
Email: complaints@igiinsight.com
Subject: Appeal/Complaint – INSPIREE