```

Overview

JMMBS is committed to maintaining international standards of academic integrity. All research articles published in JMMBS undergo external peer review prior to acceptance, conducted independently of any commercial or institutional pressures.

Type of Peer Review

JMMBS operates a formal double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review system in which both author and reviewer identities are concealed throughout the entire review process. Neither party knows the identity of the other until after a final decision has been made.

Review Workflow

1
Initial Screening Manuscripts are checked for scope fit, completeness of submission files, basic formatting, and ethical compliance before entering formal review.
2
Editorial Assessment The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor evaluates scientific relevance, novelty, and alignment with journal scope. Manuscripts not meeting threshold standards may be desk-rejected at this stage.
3
Reviewer Assignment Two or more independent subject-matter experts are identified and invited to review the manuscript anonymously.
4
Peer Review Reviewers assess methodology, originality, clarity of reporting, data interpretation, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field. Reviewers submit structured, evidence-based reports.
5
Editorial Decision Based on reviewer reports, the editor issues one of: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
6
Final Approval Revised manuscripts undergo final editorial verification to confirm all reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed before publication.

Plagiarism Screening

All submitted manuscripts are screened for similarity and potential plagiarism using recognised similarity-detection software prior to external peer review. Manuscripts with excessive similarity or suspected academic misconduct are rejected or returned to authors for clarification.

Screening reports are used as a flagging tool and interpreted in editorial context — they are not applied mechanically.

Review Criteria

Manuscripts are evaluated based on:

  • Scientific rigor and methodological soundness
  • Originality and contribution to movement science
  • Clarity of presentation and data interpretation
  • Ethical compliance and conflict-of-interest disclosure
  • Relevance to biomechanics, exercise science, or clinical movement research

Reviewer Ethics & Confidentiality

  • All manuscripts are treated as strictly confidential documents
  • Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest prior to accepting a review assignment
  • Use of manuscript content or data for personal advantage is prohibited
  • Reviews must be objective, constructive, and evidence-based — not dismissive or personal

Review Timeline

The average peer review cycle ranges from 4 to 8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the number of revision rounds required. Total time from submission to publication varies with author responsiveness and manuscript complexity.

Authors are notified of the editorial decision by email as soon as it is available.

Appeals & Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written justification to the Editorial Office at info@jmmbs.org. Appeals must include a clear, point-by-point, evidence-based response to the reasons stated for rejection.

Appeals are reviewed independently by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Editorial Board member who was not previously involved in the decision process. The outcome of the appeal is final.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions at JMMBS are based solely on scholarly merit — methodological rigour, originality, ethical compliance, and relevance to scope. Sponsorship, institutional affiliation, author seniority, geographic origin, or any commercial interest has no bearing on acceptance decisions. Editors recuse themselves from manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists.

```