Reviewer Guidelines for the International Sport Coaching Journal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When conducting peer reviews for scholarly journals there are many factors to consider for evaluating the quality of research.The guidelines in this editorial aim to enhance the quality and effectiveness of peer reviews for the International Sport Coaching Journal (ISCJ), ultimately contributing to the advancement of scholarly discourse in the field of sport coaching.This editorial is written by two editorial board members of the ISCJ, who have both been formally recognized for their quality peer reviewing, and guided by and edited by the ISCJ's Editor.We present reviewer guidelines, offering a general framework for reviewers to provide peer review and feedback to the author(s).These guidelines serve as a valuable resource for reviewers, outlining how to structure reviewer comments for initial submissions with different recommendations (accept, major/minor revisions, reject), as well as for resubmitted manuscripts.The guidelines are designed to assist reviewers in structuring their comments effectively.ISCJ has two submission types: Original Research and Practical Advances that offer unique distinctions encompassing different purposes, formats, styles, and organizational structure to be considered.Original Research papers submitted to ISCJ are scientific research studies aimed to develop and innovate the field of sport coaching, internationally.These papers will maintain a general flow which include a review of literature and theoretical framework, a clearly articulated purpose statement of the study, appropriate methodology, a description of participants, data collection, analysis and research ethics used, results or findings, and a discussion.These types of manuscripts are not to exceed 35 pages inclusive of abstracts, references, tables, or figures.In contrast, Practical Advances papers submitted to ISCJ are applied manuscripts that offer practical insights and stimulate dialogue about coaching and coaching related topics.These papers contain a welldeveloped set of ideas while remaining flexible in their format and organization.Practical Advances generally contain an explanation of the topic or problem addressed, an analysis rationalizing the topic, and an integration of theoretical, practical, and academic literature.The formatting and naming of these sections may vary based on the topic; however, the paper should include a conclusion section that prompts dialogue and new insights into coaching.These manuscripts adhere to an academic style writing with Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA; 7 th edition) formatting, include citations, and use applied evidence to support their ideas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.222 | 0.705 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.035 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.028 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".