Welcome to the June update for Foxwood Personal Training, York. It has been another busy month with clients at Egerton’s Garage Gym. However, the big news for this month is that I have had a paper accepted for publication in a prestigious strength and conditioning journal. I can’t divulge the details just yet. I must first wait until it has actually been published. However, it might be of interest to some for me to talk about the peer review process.
As you may know, back in October I began my Professional Doctorate in Strength and Conditioning with St Mary’s. This is module based for the first two years. The final three years are research based, as per a traditional PhD. However, the first module has been fantastic in laying the foundations for the three year research period. We were required to write a review article for this module and also conduct a case study with an athlete. I viewed this as an opportunity to engage in the area in which I plan to conduct the rest of my doctoral research.
My review paper and case study were both on isometric strength training for endurance runners. The review article was completed first. I subsequently submitted it for consideration in a peer reviewed strength and conditioning journal, and it has now been accepted. The case study has also been submitted to a journal, but this is still undergoing peer review.
Journal Submission for Isometric Strength and Conditioning Paper
So, a little about the peer review process. Two reviewers were assigned to my paper. The whole process is a blind peer review. The reviewers do not know who wrote the article and I do not know who the reviewers are. The paper was not immediately accepted. But it was not rejected either. It was deemed revisions were required before it could be accepted for publication. I viewed this as a success, as I believe it is extremely rare for a paper to be accepted without revisions.
The reviewers, as expected, scrutinised my paper in great detail. They challenged my thought processes in several areas. In a number of these areas, I made revisions based on their comments. However, there were a couple of instances where I did not agree with their comments. In these instances, I was able to state that no revisions had been made, so long as I provided a justification for this. Clearly, my justifications were of sufficient quality, as the paper has been accepted for publication. To say I am pleased with the outcome is an understatement. I look forward to being able to share the details of the paper with you, once it is (hopefully soon!) published.