Core Responsibilities and Professional Conduct: Peer review plays a critical role in maintaining the quality and integrity of published research in Journal Sport-Mu. According to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, reviewers should "only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise necessary to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner". Reviewers accepting an invitation from Journal Sport-Mu must conduct their evaluation objectively, constructively, and within the agreed timeframe.

Conflict of Interest and Objectivity: Impartiality is fundamental to the integrity of the peer review process. In accordance with COPE Peer Review Standards, reviewers must "declare any potential competing or conflicting interests (which might be financial, institutional, collaborative, or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and seek advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest". Reviewers should decline to review if a conflict exists or if they cannot provide an unbiased assessment.

Confidentiality and Intellectual Property: Manuscripts submitted to Journal Sport-Mu are privileged documents. As emphasized in the COPE Guidelines on Peer Review Confidentiality, reviewers must "respect the confidentiality of peer review and not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organisation’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discrediting others". Reviewers must not share, discuss, or distribute any part of the manuscript with third parties without prior authorization from the Editor-in-Chief.

Detecting Ethical Misconduct and Plagiarism: Reviewers serve as an essential defense line in identifying potential publication misconduct. Based on the COPE Flowcharts on Suspected Peer Review Misconduct, reviewers are requested to alert the editorial team if they suspect "any ethical concerns, such as substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and a published paper, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or undisclosed conflicts of interest". Reviewers should report suspicions confidentially to the editor rather than investigating independently.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools in Reviewing: To uphold confidentiality and original critical judgment, the use of generative AI tools during review requires strict adherence to ethical standards. In accordance with the COPE Position Statement on AI Tools, reviewers must not upload manuscripts into unauthorized AI applications, as this violates confidentiality and copyright. Furthermore, review reports must reflect the reviewer's independent critical analysis and must not be generated solely by automated AI software.

Constructive Feedback and Timeliness: Review reports submitted to Journal Sport-Mu should be clear, detailed, and polite. As guided by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, reviewers should "be objective and constructive in their reviews, providing feedback that will help authors improve their manuscript". Personal criticisms or derogatory remarks are strictly unacceptable. If unexpected circumstances prevent a reviewer from meeting the deadline, they must inform the editorial office immediately to request an extension or alternative arrangements.