Abstract:Background: The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods: Opinion article. Aim: To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results: Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific "response to reviews" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion: By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

Getting published: Suggestions and strategies from editors of sport and exercise psychology journals

Publishing an applied statistics paper: Guidance and advice from editors

A Pragmatic Approach to Getting Published: 35 Tips for Early Career Researchers

Publishing in high quality journals: perspectives from overworked and unpaid reviewers

The rites of writing papers: steps to successful publishing for psychiatrists

Mastering the scientific peer review process: tips for young authors from a young senior editor

How to write an effective journal peer review using a staged writing approach: a best-practice guide for early-career researchers

GUEST EDITORIAL: Exploring Sport Psychology in the Discipline of Sports Coaching

[How to publish in pediatrics journals with impact factor: Role of open access journals]

Strategies to Involve End Users in Sport-Science Research

Knowledge behind the scenes of a peer-reviewed journal helps in publishing your manuscript

Journeying Through Journals: The Publishing Process and How to Maximise Research Impact

Editorial: How to develop a quality research article and avoid a journal desk rejection

ISSN exercise & sport nutrition review: research & recommendations

ISSN exercise & sports nutrition review update: research & recommendations

Tips and tricks for writing a manuscript to publish in a biomedical journal

Exploring the Black Box of Journal Manuscript Review: A Survey of Social Science Journal Editors

Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers

Good Scientific Practice and Ethics in Sports and Exercise Science: A Brief and Comprehensive Hands-on Appraisal for Sports Research

Peer Review Is Primary: Presentations, Publications, Promotions, and Practice

An overview of the peer review process in biomedical sciences