The Sapientia – Information for reviewers

Thank you very much for agreeing the review this manuscript for The Sapientia.


Writing your review.

The quality of our journal is directly linked to the quality of reviews. Please give detailed and constructive comments (with references, if possible) that will help the editors make a decision on the manuscript and the authors to improve it.

We ask our reviewers to provide the following information:

Comments to author

Please provide the main part of your review here but do not include your recommendation regarding publication. Include all comments which might help the author improve the manuscript.  Exercise Medicine uses an anonymous review system. If you wish to let the author know your name please include it here.

Confidential Comments to Editor

Confidential comments to the Editor are optional. You may wish to include a statement about your recommendation, or something which would not be constructive for the author.



Recommendation types

Accept. The paper is acceptable in its present form. Some minor copy-editing may still be required, but it can be dealt with in the Editorial Office or at the proofing stage so the authors do not need to submit a revision.

Minor revision. The manuscript is generally good but requires minor content and/or editorial changes before it is suitable for publication.

Major revision. The paper contains one or more serious problems in substance or form which it may be possible to correct by substantial revision. Such revised manuscripts are usually reviewed again by the editor and reviewers. This category applies only to manuscripts that contain important scientific information and whose flaws may be correctable.

Reject. The content, style, and/or preparation of the manuscript are flawed to the extent that it is unlikely that revisions can make the manuscript suitable for publication. The subject matter of the manuscript may be considered inappropriate for the journal.

It may be possible to allow re-submission of a rejected paper, if it has some merit despite its shortcomings. Please indicate in your comments to the editor if, in spite of serious concerns, you recommend reconsideration if major modifications are undertaken and a new submission made.


We usually refer revised manuscripts to at least one of the original reviewers, where possible. Please let us know whether you would be happy to look at a revised version of the manuscript.

Evaluate a manuscript for:

Originality. Does the work address an important knowledge gap or add enough to what is already in the published literature?  If appropriate, please cite relevant references to support your comments on originality. Does the paper discuss an issue of current concern in the field? Is the paper suitable for an international readership?

Scientific reliability.  Is the rationale for the study or paper adequate? Is the research question clearly defined?  Is the overall design of the study appropriate and adequate to appropriately answer the research question?  Is the sample size adequate to address the research question, and are the potential biases in participant enrolment identified? Are participants adequately described? Are inclusion and exclusion criteria explained?

Accuracy and scope of the literature review. Does the author refer to relevant papers in the literature?

Methods. Are the Methods adequately described and main outcome measures clear and adequate? Does the methods section include a statement about bioethics review of the research protocol and the informed consent process?

Data analysis, results, interpretation and conclusion. Do the results answer the research question? Are they credible and clearly presented by means of appropriate tables, graphs or diagrams.  Are the implications of the findings carefully considered and are the interpretation and conclusions warranted by and sufficiently derived from the data presented?

Title and Abstract. Is the title suitably informative? Does the abstract state accurately what the paper reports?

References. Are the references up to date and are there any obvious omissions?

General comments. Is the paper well written, concise and organised?  Has the author followed the Author Guidelines? Is the author’s message clear? What is the overall significance of the work?


Constructive criticism

Constructive criticism and suggestions for changing the paper to improve the manuscript are welcomed. Please make any recommendation for acceptance or rejection in the Comments to the Editor section, not in your comments for the author. Please maintain a tone of professional respect in your review with criticisms presented in a positive manner, accompanied by specific suggestions for improvement, whenever possible. Personal or derogatory language should be avoided.




Please note that unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents.  Please do not discuss the article with anyone except the Journal Editor.  If you would like to consult a colleague or pass it on to someone else to review please first contact the Editorial Office (email: