How publishing works in this field
Sport and exercise science publishes like a biomedical field — intervention studies, physiological measurement, ethics approval and trial registration where applicable. The sociology and management side publishes like a social science, with entirely separate journals. Submitting across that line is a common and avoidable rejection.
Intervention reporting is expected in detail: the training or exercise prescription with intensity, volume, frequency and progression, how compliance was measured, and what the control condition actually involved. "Usual training" is not a reportable comparator.
What slows papers down here
Elite-athlete samples are small by nature, which limits statistical power and makes participants identifiable. Both need handling: magnitude-based or individual-response analyses where appropriate, and real care about identifiability when the sample is one national squad.
Confidentiality agreements with clubs and federations restrict what can be published, sometimes including the result itself. Agreeing publication rights before the study, rather than after the data exists, avoids the worst version of this.
Worth reading next
Questions we are asked in this field
Frame it honestly as what it is, report individual responses alongside group statistics, and avoid inferential claims the sample cannot support. Reviewers accept small elite samples; they do not accept them analysed as though they were large.
Harder than usual, because sport, level, position and season can identify someone. Generalise descriptors, avoid reporting individual results that map to a known person, and obtain consent that specifically covers publication.
Declare the restriction and publish what is permitted, or negotiate before the study. Journals expect a data availability statement naming the constraint. Selective reporting without disclosure is a serious problem, not a compromise.