About the Journal

Aim and Scope

The BJMB accepts original contributions pertaining to the multidisciplinary study of human movement throughout the lifespan, involving a broad range of topics related to the field of Motor Behavior like motor control, development and learning, movement disorders, clinical, theoretical and model studies. These articles could come from diverse disciplines such as kinesiology, biomechanics, neurophysiology, neuroscience, psychology, medicine, sports performance, and rehabilitation. Please note that this journal only publishes manuscripts in English. 

The following types of manuscripts will be considered for publication: research articles, systematic review and meta-analysis articles, mini-review articles, scoping review articles, research notes, current opinion, critiques articles, tutorials articles, and infographic articles.

Research articles:  Original manuscripts presenting new information that contributes to the scientific fields covered in the BJMB with methods and results presented systematically. 

Systematic review and meta-analysis articles:  Reviews should be an up-to-date synthesis of well-established topics including a critical analysis of the literature used and its idiosyncratic conclusions. 

Mini-review articles: Mini-reviews should cover an important topic in motor behavior, in a way that will inform readers, including readers not familiar with the topic. Mini-reviews are meant to be short, punchy, and interesting. 

Scoping review articles:  Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or investigate research conduct.

Research notes:  Short and insightful communications of studies systematically performed presenting exciting new findings. Research notes may represent either a final report on definitive studies which do not require a larger space for complete documentation, or a preliminary report on the new observations of sufficient significance to warrant rapid publication. 

Current Opinion: These editorially reviewed pieces aim to provide a perspective on a current relevant, important, and perhaps controversial issue within the scope of the BJMB.

Critiques articles:  Comments to the Editor on an article published recently in the journal or raising issues that are new to the motor behavior area. In the case of letters commenting on a published paper, normally the author of that paper will be invited to comment/reply to the letter.

Tutorials articles: Articles that provide special, often individual, instruction in a particular area applied to motor behavior. These pieces provide novel and original insight and reflection on the use of one or several methods of modeling, design, analysis, or synthesis in an accessible format that can be used for guided or self-instruction in the motor behavior area. 

Infographic articles: An infographic should be a quick, easy-to-use and enjoyable publication that helps us to remember the information they contain. It is carefully selected information from a systematic review or meta-analysis article, highlighting the key messages, or a visual and easy explanation of a theoretical perspective or intervention effects in the motor behavior area would be provided in this section.  

 

Publication Frequency

Quarterly (four numbers per year): March, June, September, and December.

 

Submission

The manuscript submitted will be accompanied by a cover letter, requesting the evaluation of the work for future publication in BJMB, expressly indicating that: (i) the work has not been disseminated or previously published elsewhere; (ii) the work has only been sent to the BJMB for evaluation and publication, if appropriate; (iii) contributions in terms of the original and novel nature of the work, in the author's opinion. Also, an authorization letter should be submitted accompanying the manuscript.

Therefore, the following documents must be included in the submission:: cover letter, authorization letter, title page, main document (without the author's name, including abstract, highlights and, when necessary, tables and figures after the references with legends), and potential referees.

 

Peer Review Process

1) Timeline

  • Receipt: Immediate through the OJS system.
  • Desk review: 2 to 5 days.
  • Proceeds for external peer review or immediate rejection decision: 5 days at the latest.
  • The first review (notification of rejection, revisions required, or acceptance): maximum of one month.
  • Publication: once a work has been accepted, the editors will inform the volume and number of the journal where the article will be published and the publication date.

2) Peer Review

The editorial committee will consider the manuscript for publication in the journal. The Editor will initially assess all manuscript regarding their suitability for the journal focus and scope and its originality (using originality detection services). It will be considered if the manuscript adapts to the coverage of the journal and satisfies the publication standards. In this case, it will undergo an external peer review. 

Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper. They will review anonymously (double-blind peer review) the manuscript, in which the reviewer's name is not disclosed to the authors and vice-versa. If the two reviewers have differing opinions, the manuscripts will be sent to a third reviewer. With the report of the two or three reviewers, the  Editor will make a final decision on their acceptance, new authors' revisions, or final rejection of the article. The Editor's decision is final. Specifically for the Current Opinion section, the section editors will review anonymously (double-blind) the manuscripts, without independent referees' review.

In general, once the external reports have been viewed, the decision regarding the acceptance-rejection of the work by the editorial staff of the BJMB is based upon the following factors: a) originality: totally original, valuable information, repetition of known findings; b) topicality and novelty; c) relevance: applicability of the findings to solve specific problems; d) significance: advancement of scientific knowledge; e) scientific reliability and validity: proven methodological quality; f) presentation: well written, organized (logic consistency and material presentation). In no case, the authors will know the identity of the reviewers, just as the reviewers will not know the identity of the authors. The protocol used by the journal reviewers is made public as an annex to these standards. During the submission process, authors may have to suggest three suitable independent referees (with their contact details), but the choice of referee rests with the Editors.

All manuscripts will be submitted to an external peer review. Reviewed works that may be considered for publication following modification must be returned within less than 20 days, both in the case of minor or major corrections being requested. The authors will receive the reviewers’ evaluation reports, anonymously, so that they can (where appropriate), make the respective corrections or replies. 

The acceptance, revisions required, or rejection of the manuscript will be notified within one month at the latest following the acceptance for review by the journal. Editors and editorial board members are not involved in editorial processes or decisions about their own work. Reviewers are asked to disclose potential conflicts of interest when they are invited to review a paper and when they submit their review.

 

Publication 

The author(s) of accepted articles will receive the printing proofs for correction in the OJS system. They must correct and return them to the editorial staff of the journal within 72 hours after their receipt. Only minimum corrections can be made to the content of the original manuscript.

Once a work has been accepted, the number in which the article will be published and the date of publication will be indicated.

 

OJS Schema Management System

Open Access Policy

BJMB is an open-access journal, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This statement is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.

There is NO charge or fee to submit nor to publish in the BJMB.

 

External Review Protocol

To improve and facilitate the review process of the manuscripts received, the guidelines to be followed by external reviewers are described below. So, the authors are familiar with the aspects that the manuscripts will be submitted.

1) Before you begin

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:

  • Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.
  • Do you have a potential conflict of interest?  Disclose this to the Editor when you respond.
  • Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.

Respond to the invitation as soon as you can (even if it is to decline) – a delay in your decision slows down the review process and means more waiting for the author. If you do decline the invitation, it would be helpful if you could provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

2) Managing your review

Confidential material

If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the Editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.

How to log in and access your review

To access the paper and deliver your review, click on the link in the invitation email you received, which will bring you to the submission/reviewing system. 

Journal-specific instructions

When you sit down to write the review, make sure you familiarize yourself with any journal-specific guidelines.

First, read the article. You might consider spot-checking major issues by choosing which section to read first. Below we offer some tips about handling specific parts of the paper.

Methodology

If the manuscript you are reviewing is reporting an experiment, check the methods section first. The following cases are considered major flaws and should be flagged:

- Unsound methodology

- Discredited method

- Missing processes are known to be influential in the area of reported research

- A conclusion is drawn in contradiction to the statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscript

For analytical papers, examine the sampling report, which is mandated in time-dependent studies. For qualitative research, make sure that systematic data analysis is presented and sufficient descriptive elements with relevant quotes from interviews are listed in addition to the author’s narrative.

Research data and visualizations

Once you are satisfied that the methodology is sufficiently robust, examine any data in the form of figures, tables, or images. Authors may add research data, including data visualizations, to their submission to enable readers to interact and engage more closely with their research after publication. Please be aware that links to data might therefore be present in the submission files. These items should also receive your attention during the peer review process. Manuscripts may also contain database identifiers or accession numbers (e.g. genes) in relation to our database linking program.

Critical issues in research data, which are considered major flaws, can be related to insufficient data points, statistically non-significant variations and unclear data tables.

Ethical considerations

Experiments including patient or animal data should properly be documented. Most journals require ethical approval by the author’s host organization. 

Overview

If you don’t spot any major flaws, take a break from the manuscript, giving you time to think. Consider the article from your own perspective. When you sit down to write the review, again make sure you familiarize yourself with any journal-specific guidelines (these will be noted in the journal’s guide for authors).

3) Structuring your review

Your review will help the Editor decide whether or not to publish the article. It will also aid the author and allow them to improve their manuscript. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive and should not include any ad hominem remarks or personal details, including your name (unless the journal you are invited to review for employs open peer review).

Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data and evidence.

Your recommendation

When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the Editor will likely use for classifying the article:

- Decline submission – the paper is rejected (explain your reasoning in your report)

- Submit elsewhere – the author may submit the paper to another journal and the manuscript is rejected (explain your reasoning in your report)

- Submit for review – either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the Editor whether you would be happy to review the revised article). If you recommend a revision, you must furnish the author with a clear, sound explanation of why this is necessary.

- Revisions required – the paper is accepted, but the authors need to review the aspects indicated by reviewers.

- Accept submission – the paper is accepted without revision.

Bear in mind that there will be the opportunity to direct separate comments to both the Editor and the author. Please don’t use See Comments.

The final decision

The Editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. The Editor will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision. The submission system provides reviewers with a notification of the final decision if the journal has opted into this function.

 

Code of Ethics

BJMB adheres to the ethical principles applicable to editing scientific journals and publishing scientific articles, essential for the journal to play its role as guardian of scientific knowledge in the field of Motor Behavior. Editors, authors, and reviewers must follow these principles ensuring ethics and integrity in the publication process. Below, we detail the ethical standards that must be followed by the actors involved in the editorial process.

Authorship: the publication’s authorship must contain only individuals who significantly contributed to the elaboration of the work presented. In case of doubt about including an individual as (co)author, we recommend that you refer to the CRediT taxonomy (https://credit.niso.org/), which includes 14 categories of roles that can be played in the elaboration of a scientific article. The author submitting the article must ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the article’s final version and agreed to its submission for publication in the BJMB. If the journal editors identify problems in the article’s authorship (editors use the COPE guide to identify this type of problem), the authors will be contacted for clarification. If the authorship problem is proven, the article should be removed from the review process. Also, concerning authorship, the inclusion (or exclusion) of authors during or after the editorial process will be subject to the editor’s evaluation on a case-by-case basis and must have the consent of all the authors of the article.

Duplicate publication: Submitting for publication the same manuscript (or a manuscript with high similarity) that has previously been published in another scientific journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior. If duplication is identified during the editorial process, the authors will be notified, and the article will be removed from the process. If duplication is identified after publication, the article will be subject to removal from the edition in which it was published, and the journal’s readers will be duly informed about the case. Articles from theses and dissertations are not considered duplicate publications and can be accepted in BJMB as long as the original work is cited in the submitted article.

Plagiarism: All articles submitted to BJMB undergo a plagiarism check in the desk-review stage, in which the journal’s editorial team uses the Turnitin application to carry out the similarity verification process. If excerpts with similarity are identified (except direct citation) and for which the reproduction has been total and/or without citation, the authors will be contacted for clarification. In the absence of appropriate clarification from the authors, the editors will archive the submission. During the peer review process, reviewers may also find evidence of plagiarism. If this happens, the reviewers will communicate the fact to the editors (presenting the appropriate evidence), and the editors will investigate suspected plagiarism using the following COPE flowchart: https://publicationethics.org/files/plagiarism%20A.pdf. If the suspicion of plagiarism is confirmed, the editors will archive the submission.

Citations and References: Articles must cite appropriate and relevant literature to support their assertions. Excessive self-citation, unnecessary citations not consistent with the content of the article presented, and any other form of manipulation of citations are considered unethical procedures. If the manipulation of citations is identified, the submission will be archived.

Conflict of interest: Authors must declare any potential conflict of interest - whether professional or financial - they may have in relation to the article. Authors must also disclose all funding sources that the research reported in the article relied on. If evidence of an undisclosed conflict of interest is found, the editors will use the following COPE flowchart to take the necessary steps: https://publicationethics.org/files/conflict-of-interest-submitted-manuscript-article-cope- flowchart.pdf. Editors and reviewers invited to review articles also need to reveal conflicts of interest that could bias the editorial process, such as personal, academic, or financial relationships. Reviewers should not review manuscripts if they believe they are involved in any conflict of interest. If there is potential bias, editors should hand over the lead of the article process to another editor.

Data fabrication: Data fabrication is the unethical practice of inventing data or research results and recording or reporting them in the article. BJMB is strictly against the fabrication of data as this practice undermines the integrity of the scientific literature and its credibility and can lead to erroneous conclusions. In this sense, if a suspected data fabrication is found in submitted articles, the editors will use the COPE flowchart (https://publicationethics.org/files/fabricated-data-submitted-manuscript-cope-flowchart.pdf) to proceed with the necessary actions. If the data fabrication is confirmed, the editors will archive the submission.

Confidentiality: The BJMB keeps all details of a submitted manuscript confidential and does not comment on or publish the manuscripts while they are under consideration or when they are rejected. BJMB editors and reviewers are committed not to disclose manuscript data (or supplementary materials) prior to publication and not to use the knowledge they have gained from an unpublished article to further their own interests. If reviewers are accused of misappropriating ideas from an article under review, the BJMB editors commit to using the following COPE flowchart to help address this situation: https://publicationethics.org/files/reviewer -misconduct-suspected-cope-flowchart.pdf

Errors in published work: When a significant error or inaccuracy is discovered in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to immediately notify the journal editor and cooperate with the editor in withdrawing or correcting the article. Errors and inaccuracies can also be pointed out by researchers post-publication, and all claims will be evaluated by BJMB’s editorial committee and can result in the article’s retraction.

Retractions: All authors must provide retractions or corrections of errors, in case of detection. If plagiarism were identified after publication, we may publish a correction or retract the paper. If irregular image manipulation is identified and confirmed after publication, we may correct or retract the paper. Our in-house editors will investigate any allegations of publication misconduct and may contact the authors' institutions or funders if necessary. If evidence of misconduct is found, appropriate action will be taken to correct or retract the publication. Authors are expected to comply with the best ethical publication practices when publishing with the BJMB.

Research Involving Human Subjects: All research involving human subjects (individuals, samples, or data) must have been carried out according to the Declaration of Helsinki principles. Before starting the study, authors must have obtained ethical approval for all protocols from their institution’s ethics committee to confirm that the study meets national and international guidelines for research in humans. A document confirming ethics committee approval must be included as a supplemental attachment to the submission, including the ethics committee name and reference numbers. For non-interventional studies (e.g., surveys) for which ethical approval is not required or where the study has received an ethics committee waiver, this information should be added to the manuscript.

The article’s authors must have obtained informed consent from the individuals participating in the study. A statement to confirm this must be included in the manuscript. If requested, authors should be prepared to provide dated copies signed by participants to the journal’s editorial staff.

Guidelines for reporting research results: It is recommended that authors use the EQUATOR guidelines (https://www.equator-network.org/) to adequately report the results according to the type of research carried out. The use of such guidelines in the preparation of the manuscript helps to increase the reliability and replicability of the research.

 

Abstracting and Indexing