Expertise procedure

Each article proposal is first examined by the editorial board, composed of the editor-in-chief and the associate editors, to check its conformity with the scientific requirements, the format and the scientific scope of the journal. Proposals will be rejected directly by the editorial board if they do not comply with the instructions to authors, if they do not correspond to the field of sport management and sport organisations, and if they do not produce new scientific knowledge within this field.

In view of these elements, proposals that comply with the instructions will be entered into the expert assessment procedure. They will be assigned by the editor-in-chief to an assistant editor. The manuscripts are then reviewed by at least two experts. The review procedure is a single-blind procedure where the authors are not aware of the identity of the experts while the experts are aware of the identity of the authors. This principle is linked to the very nature of overlay journals, which is based on a deposit in an open repository.

Authors may, if they wish, indicate the names of experts they do not wish to be involved in the process.

The experts provide a report to the authors and a confidential recommendation to the editorial office. The report must comply with the codes of good practice for scientific expertise.

The expert opinion will be detailed and will highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals based on the criteria set out in an expert opinion grid. The experts must formulate one of the following opinions in their recommendation:

• Proposal accepted
• Request for minor revisions
• Request for major revisions
• Proposal rejected with possible re-submission
• Proposal rejected

On the basis of these expert opinions, the relevant associate editor and the editor-in-chief make a final decision. A proposal is accepted when the editor-in-chief is satisfied that all the specific changes and responses to the points raised by the experts have been satisfactory. The final decision rests with the editor-in-chief in the event of differences of opinion between the associate editors and the experts.