This section of evaluation criteria of the magazine IJPESS has the objective of establishing and clearly presenting the measures by which the evaluation processes of the different articles received are governed.

It is not only addressed to the members of the Scientific Committee of our journal, but also to the authors. We intend it to be a practical guide to the parameters under which the texts submitted for possible publication are evaluated.

The spirit that guides the work of the Scientific Committee of "Challenges" lies not only in evaluating the quality of the texts to be published, but also and, fundamentally, in contributing to the advancement of research in the disciplines involved in the study and development of physical-sports activity, through reading and academic discussion of the works presented for evaluation. Our purpose is to continue contributing, as far as possible, to the advancement of the disciplines involved, from the academic field.

Below is a brief summary of some interesting aspects to facilitate the work of the Scientific Committee.

1. «IJPESS» publishes works that are carried out with methodological rigor and that represent a contribution to the progress of any area of scientific physical-sports activity. Those who are sent to any of the following sections will be subjected to evaluation:

Scientific in nature: basic and/or applied research work.
Dissemination and/or empirical didactic experiences. Exchange of proposals and experiences developed and researched.
Theoretical reviews (proposed or requested, previously, by members of the Scientific Committee with preference for those who are committed to critical research issues and discuss controversial approaches.

It should be taken into account that according to the journal quality criteria adopted by our journal since 2006, the percentage of theoretical review articles, out of the total published per issue, may not be higher than 25%, that is, at least 75%. They must be original articles that communicate research results. Likewise, at least 80% of the authors must be external to the editorial committee and virtually unrelated to the editorial organization of the journal.

2. The works will be original and unpublished, not admitting those that have been published totally or partially, nor those that are in the process of publication or have been submitted to another journal for evaluation. It is assumed that all persons listed as authors have given their consent and that any person cited as a source of personal communication consents to such citation. It is the responsibility of the authors for any possible anomalies or plagiarism that may arise from this.
3. In order to maintain anonymity, the names of the authors will not appear in the article file in order to be able to carry out the impartial or “blind” evaluation. The authors will endeavor to ensure that the text does not contain clues or suggestions that identify them. It is also guaranteed that the article and the name of its authors will enjoy total confidentiality until its publication.
4. All manuscripts will be reviewed anonymously by three referees who are experts in the subject of the original work, who will be selected by the Editorial Board, who are of recognized solvency and have no institutional connection with the journal. The evaluators are external to the journal and independent and will judge the appropriateness of its publication and, where appropriate, will suggest appropriate corrections. The review method used is “blind” (anonymity of author and evaluators), with a member of the Editorial Board being in charge of establishing contact between the two. The manuscript and the experts' report are, without a doubt, confidential documents and should not be discussed with colleagues, with only the director of the journal having knowledge, who will send, completely anonymously, the final report with all the comments made by the members. of the corresponding thematic area that has evaluated the article in question, to the author/s.
5. Authors may indicate some people whom, for various reasons, they do not wish to see involved in the review process of their work. Likewise, the author(s) may suggest names of experts (from the Scientific Committee or not) suitable for the evaluation of their originals, regardless of whether or not they are later used for this purpose by the journal.
6. After hearing the suggestions of the Editorial/Scientific Committee, the result of the evaluation process may be: 1). Accept from the article, 2). Reject work that you do not consider appropriate, 3). Acceptance conditional on rectifications necessary for acceptance.
7. Evaluators must fill out the corresponding evaluation model, taking into account the section to which the article has been assigned, and must take into consideration the respective specific criteria for evaluating articles.
8. The evaluators must send the evaluation report to the director of the journal within a maximum period of four weeks from receipt of the article for evaluation.
9. The aspects that must be taken into account by the authors, from a formal point of view, can be found in the presentation section of the works.