Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

INSPIREE: Indonesian Sport Innovation Review is a journal aims to be a leading peer-reviewed platform and an authoritative source of information. We publish original research papers, review articles, and case studies focused on Sport in the world as well as related topics that have neither been published elsewhere in any language nor is it under review for publication anywhere. This following statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor, the reviewer, and the publisher (INSPIREE & Department of Physical Education and Sport, Universitas Pahlawan) Indonesia. The journal supports the code of conduct set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)  (https://publicationethics.org/). You can learn much more about the Core Practices on the COPE website: COPE CORE PRACTICES

INSPIREE will adheres to the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers. We encourage journal editors to follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors and to refer reviewers to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers as appropriate. Allegations of misconduct will be investigated in accordance with the COPE Best Practice Guidelines as far as is practicable. 

 

Duties of Authors

1. Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: The Author should not in general submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced
4. Acknowledgment of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.
5. Authorship of the Paper: The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made the significant contribution must be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgment section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.
6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Duties of Editor

1. Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.
2. Review of Manuscripts: Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. The Editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
3. Fair Play: The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
4. Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.
5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest

Duties of Reviewers

1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
2. Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
3. Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work
4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. In the case of the double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
5. Promptness: The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of the manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.

Change or Modification of Published Paper

Manuscript withdrawal is strongly discouraged, it is waste of valuable resources that publisher put. If author still requests withdrawal of their manuscript, following guidelines has to be followed

Manuscript withdrawal will be permitted only for the most compelling and unavoidable reasons. It is unacceptable to withdraw a manuscript from a journal because it is being accepted by another journal;
Author should submitting a request to editorial office as a letter that signed by all authors stating the full cause that led to the step of manuscript withdrawal;
In a case where a manuscript has taken more than six months time for review process, publishers allows the author to withdraw manuscript without paying any charges;
If the manuscript is still in peer-reviewed process, author have to pay 25.00 ($US) per manuscript as a penalty of withdrawal;
If the manuscript is already accepted for publication, author have to pay 50.00 ($US) per manuscript as a penalty of withdrawal;
If author don't agree to pay the penalty, the author and his/her affiliation will be blacklisted for publication in this journal;
Authors must not assume that their manuscript has been withdrawn until they have received appropriate notification to this effect from the editorial office.

Penalties
Double Submission: If double submission was found or noticed from other sources, editorial board should check the status. If the double submission was confirmed as intentional thing,
• Review process will be terminated.
• The reason should be sent to reviewers, editorial board and authors.
• All authors’ name will be marked as black list, and these authors cannot submit any paper to Journal INSPIREE for two years.

Human-subjects Reasearch

Authors of papers addressing human subjects research must also ensure that the study reported in their submission, as well as the publishing of their manuscript, complies with all applicable regulations in their locality.

Prior to paper submission, authors of manuscripts detailing research involving human subjects must get evaluation and approval (or review and waiver) from their Institutional Review Board (IRB). Authors of multisite research articles must receive permission from each institution's IRB. Upon request, documentation of IRB status must be made accessible. If no institutional review boards or committees exist, the authors must conduct their study in line with the Declaration of Helsinki, as updated in 2013. The Materials and Methods section must include a declaration of IRB approval or waiver (and the explanation for the waiver) or a statement of adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki (or at the end of the text for shorter article types: e.g., announcements, short form papers, etc.).

Informed consent for publication is not needed if the patient cannot be identified from any material in a manuscript. Identifiable characteristics such as patient initials, precise dates, specific geographic exposures, or other identifying elements (including bodily features in figures) should be deleted in the absence of informed permission, but this must not change the scientific meaning. Important information important to the scientific meaning should be expressed in such a way that the patient cannot be recognized, for example, by specifying a season rather than a date or a location rather than a city. If a patient may be recognized from a manuscript's content, every attempt should be taken to get informed consent to publish from patients or their parents/legal guardians if the patient is a minor. In order to give informed consent, the patient must be able to read the manuscript before it is submitted. Either that the patient has examined the entire text or that the patient refuses to do so must be included in the signed consent. The authors should keep a copy of the patient's permission and make it available upon request. The published paper should include a statement attesting to the receipt and preservation of signed patient permission.

For more information, please see the ORI module on human subject research and the COPE guidelines. If the author need help with IRB form, you may email: Irb@inspiree.review