PUBLICATION ETHICS

 

1. Fair ethics policy
2. Authors’ responsibility
3. Editors’ responsibility
4. Reviewers’ responsibility
5. Publisher’s responsibility
6. Informed consent
7. Human and animal rights
8. Policy on interests disclosure
9. Retraction

   

1. Fair ethics policy

The Editorial of the scientific and practical journal “Medicine and Physical Education: Science and Practice” is guided by the following materials •

• Standards of the Committee on Ethics of Scientific Publications (COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors);
• Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors;
• Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE);
• materials of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).

The Editorial of the journal “Medicine and Physical Education: Science and Practice” does everything possible to comply with the ethical standards adopted by the international scientific community, and to prevent any violations of these standards.

All articles submitted for publication in the journal “Medicine and Physical Education: Science and Practice” are reviewed for originality, ethics, and significance. A mandatory condition for publishing an article in the journal is compliance with the journal's publication ethics. All submitted manuscripts are checked in the “Antiplagiat” system.

 

2. Authors’ responsibility

1. Authors who have submitted the manuscript of an article to the Editorial must provide reliable results of their research. Obviously erroneous or falsified statements are unacceptable.
2. Authors must ensure that the research results presented in the submitted manuscript are completely original. Borrowed fragments or statements must be issued with the obligatory indication of the author and the original source. Excessive borrowing, as well as plagiarism in any form, including unformulated quotes, paraphrasing, or assigning rights to the results of other people's research, is unethical and unacceptable.
3. It is necessary to recognize the contribution of all persons who in one way or another influenced the course of the research, in particular, the article should contain references to works that were important during the research.
4. Authors should not submit to the journal a manuscript that has been sent to another journal and is under review, as well as an article that has already been published in another journal.
5. All persons who have made a significant contribution (indicated for each co-author at the end of the article) to the research should be listed as co-authors of the article. It is not allowed to include people among the co-authors if they did not participate in the study. The author must ensure that the names of all co-authors and project participants are included in the lists of co-authors and participants and that all co-authors have read the final version of the scientific work and approved it, as well as given their consent to its publication.
6. If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his published work, he must immediately notify the editor of the journal and assist them in removing or correcting the error. If the editor learns from a third party that the published work contains significant errors, the author must immediately remove or correct them, or provide the Editorial with proof of the correctness of the original article.
7. It is allowed to publish the same article in other journals if it is translated into another language only with the consent of the authors and publishers for re-publication and with a mandatory reference to the first edition.
8. Authors must eliminate comments on the article made by the Editorial and/or reviewers in good faith and within the time limits set by the Editorial. If authors disagree with the reviewers ' opinion, they give reasonable objections to the substance of the reviewer's comments.
9. If the analysis of the problem state is based on confidential information (personal communication, reviewing of manuscripts, grants, etc.), this information cannot be published without the consent of the persons who are its sources.
10. The author may inform the Editorial about conflicts of interest, including administrative, research, and financial ones, related to the work. The Editorial should take this information into account when organizing the review and making a decision on the publication of the manuscript.

 

3. Editors’ responsibility

The Editorial assists authors in improving the quality of papers submitted to the journal through scientific review and literary editing of articles. The editors are obliged to make fair and impartial decisions that do not depend on commercial interests and organize an objective review process.

Editorial:

• provides instructions for authors on preparing and submitting manuscripts (see the section of the journal's website “Information for Authors”);
• respects the honor and dignity of authors, correctly conducts correspondence, providing goodwill, helping authors, if necessary, to choose a profile journal;
• maintains confidentiality by not disclosing information about the submitted manuscript to the Editorial of the journal to third parties, except for reviewers. Correspondence with the author is confidential, as well as the content of negative reviews, which are reported only to the author;
• reviews all submitted manuscripts without prejudice to their authors and does not disclose information about the submitted manuscripts to anyone other than reviewers and editorial staff;
• assigns a “double-blind” peer-review to ensure an unbiased review of the manuscript;
• when deciding on a publication, it is guided by the reviewers' expert assessment, the reliability of the submitted data, and the scientific significance of the work under review;
• ensures that reviewers are aware of the review rules;
• organizes peer review aimed at rapid publication of high-quality research while maintaining a rigorous but benevolent peer-review process. Materials rejected as a result of insufficient research or lack of relevance are returned during the review process within a month;
• adopts an editorial policy that ensures maximum transparency and full accountability to the author;
• protects the integrity of publications, making corrections if necessary, and issues reasonable refusals to those whose manuscripts do not comply with the “Code on Ethics for Scientific Publications”;
• protects the rights of third parties from unauthorized use of materials (plagiarism) – persons caught in plagiarism are deprived of the opportunity to publish in the journal. The Editorial of the journal can make public cases of plagiarism that have become known to it on its pages;
• regulates editorial conflicts of interest and takes into account information received from the author about conflicts of interest, including administrative, research, and financial, related to his work when organizing a review and making a decision on the publication of the manuscript;
• if the manuscript is rejected or sent for revision, the Editorial provides the authors with reasons for their decision;
• publishes an error message signed by the persons who discovered it, if there is sufficient evidence that the published materials are incorrect;
• does not allow materials with incorrect links and incorrect borrowings to be printed.

 

4. Reviewers’ responsibility

Reviewers assist the scientific editor in making an editorial decision, as well as help the author improve the work.

1. Reviewers should agree to review only those manuscripts for which they have sufficient knowledge to evaluate and which they can review on time.
2. Any manuscripts received for review should be treated as confidential documents. They may not be shown or discussed with other persons not involved in the review process, except in necessary cases approved by the editor.
3. Reviewers should not keep copies of manuscripts and should not use the information obtained during the review for their own benefit or the benefit of other persons or organizations, or to harm others or discredit others.
4. Reviewers should report all possible conflicts of interest and seek advice from the journal if they are not sure whether the current situation constitutes a conflict of interest or not.
5. Reviewers should not allow the content of their review to be influenced by the origin of the manuscript, nationality, religious affiliation, political or other views of its authors, or commercial considerations.
6. Reviewers' comments confirm the positive aspects of the material under review. Negative aspects should be indicated constructively. Reviewers should refrain from making hostile or inflammatory statements, or from making defamatory or derogatory comments. Otherwise, the author will not be able to understand the disadvantages of his work.
7. Reviewers should identify a published work that has not been cited by the аuthor if the аuthor is aware of it. Any statement that an observation, origin, or argument has been previously reported must be accompanied by a corresponding reference. The reviewer must also inform the Editorial of any significant similarity or partial overlap between the manuscript being reviewed and another already published work that is familiar to them.
8. Reviewers should provide accurate and truthful information about their personal and professional knowledge and experience to journals.
9. Reviewers are required to follow the instructions for completing reviews and send them to the editor on time. If it is not possible to complete the review by the specified deadline, the reviewer must notify the Editorial or refuse to review in time.

 

5. Publisher’s responsibility

The publisher must follow the principles and procedures that facilitate the ethical performance of the Editors, Reviewers, and аuthors of the journal “Medicine and Physical Education: Science and Practice”.

Publisher:

• defines relations between the publisher, editors, and other participants in contractual relations, forms an effective journal policy and mechanisms for its implementation and distributes information about the journal policy;
• respects the right of confidentiality and privacy of personal information (for example, for research participants, authors, reviewers);
• protects intellectual property and copyright (copyright);
• promotes the independence of editors;
• collaborates with other publishers and industry associations, including ethical issues, bug tracking, and publishing rebuttals;
• ensures compliance with the Code of conduct for journal editors;
• remains true to the principles of scientific integrity;
• assists parties (such as institutions, grantees, government agencies) responsible for investigating cases of unfair research and publication practices and, if possible, in resolving these issues;
• assists the editors in the publication of corrections, clarifications, and review of unfair articles;
• ensures timely publication of the journal.

 

6. Informed consent

It is forbidden to publish any information that makes it possible to identify the patient (indicate his name, initials, numbers of medical records in photographs, when writing descriptions and pedigrees), except in cases where it is of great scientific value and the patient (his parents or guardians) has given informed written consent to this. Receiving consent should be reported in the published article.

 

7. Human and animal rights

If the article contains a description of human experiments, please indicate whether they met the ethical standards of the Committee on Human Experiments (part of the institution where the work was performed, or regional) or the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and its revised version of 2013.

When describing experiments on animals, you should indicate whether the content and use of laboratory animals were in accordance with the rules adopted in the institution, the recommendations of the national research council, and national laws.

 

8. Policy on interests disclosure

Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained in the course of reviewing and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

Reviewers should not participate in reviewing manuscripts if there are conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies, or other organizations associated with the submitted work.

 

9. Retraction

Article retraction is a mechanism for correcting (without a limitation period for publication) published information and notifying readers that the publication contains serious flaws or erroneous data that cannot be trusted. Data inaccuracy may be the result of good faith misrepresentation or deliberate violations. Retraction is also necessary to warn readers about duplicate articles, plagiarism, and concealment of important conflicts of interest that may affect the interpretation of data or recommendations about their use.

The reason for the review (retraction) of the article is the confirmation by the editors of the journal of the fact that the article contains the following violations of scientific and publication ethics:

• data falsification, when most of the article contains unreliable data – the result of deliberate violations or conscientious error due to miscalculation, experimental error, typo;
• multiple publications, i.e. authors have published the same data or article in multiple journals without appropriate justification, permission, or cross-references;
• plagiarism, when most of the article contains the results of previously published research by other authors, or when the borrowings are not linked properly.

Procedure for revoking (retracting) an article

The editors of the journal retract the article basing on the official request of the author/group of authors, motivated to explain the reason for his decision, and by decision of the Editorial based on its own examination or received information.

If the Editorial of the journal does not respond to the author's request within 30 business days, the author has the right to apply to the Council for ethics of scientific publications of ASEP.

If the Editorial decides to withdraw the article based on the violations listed above, the author (corresponding author in the case of collective authorship) is sent a notification explaining the reason for retraction.

The decision to withdraw the article is made taking into account the response of the author(s) of the article, justifying his position on this issue. If the author(s) does not respond to the Editorial's request within 10 business days, the Editorial has the right to withdraw the article without their consent. Authors may not agree with the Editorial's position, but this does not cancel the right to conduct a review procedure.

The decision to withdraw the article is made in the Protocol. Copies of the Protocol are sent to the author (corresponding author in case of collective authorship), to the Council for ethics of scientific publications of ASEP, to the scientific electronic library eLibrary, the scientific electronic library “Cyberleninka” and other databases that index journal articles.

Information about the review of the article is published in the next issue of the journal in all its versions (print and/or electronic), indicating the reason (in case of plagiarism – indicating the sources of borrowing) and the date of retraction of the article. Withdrawn articles are publicly available and identified as such in all electronic sources (on the journal's website and in bibliographic databases marked RETRACTED); retracted articles and links from them are excluded from citation indexes and do not participate in the calculation of indicators.

Along with the decision to withdraw the article, the Editorial of the journal may decide to impose a ban on accepting articles from the author of the retracted article for a certain period of time.