PUBLICATION ETHICS
PUBLICATION ETHICS
- Key Terms
The editor-in-chief of a scientific journal is responsible for the journal’s editorial policy and overall content. They make the final decisions regarding which manuscripts are published and oversee the work of the entire editorial team.
The executive editor journal is responsible for the final preparation of materials for publication, coordinating the editorial team’s activities, and communicating with reviewers to ensure the journal’s high quality and timely release.
An author is an individual or a group of individuals (a team of authors) involved in the preparation and publication of scientific research results.
A reviewer is an expert who conducts a scientific assessment of an author’s materials on behalf of the editorial board of a scientific journal or publishing house, in order to evaluate their quality, originality, and compliance with publication standards.
A publisher is a legal entity or individual responsible for producing and distributing a scientific publication.
A reader is any person who accesses or reads the published materials.
Plagiarism is the intentional appropriation of another person’s scientific or artistic work, ideas, or inventions. It may constitute a violation of copyright or patent law and, as such, can result in legal liability.
- General provisions
2.1 Publication ethics is a system of professional standards and rules governing the relationships among authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, and readers in the process of creating, publishing, and disseminating scientific articles.
2.2 Publication ethics has been developed in accordance with the regulatory framework of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the international publication ethics standards established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) — https://publicationethics.org. It regulates the activities of the journals Theory and Methodology of Physical Education and Tourism, Leisure, and Hospitality.
2.3 Publication ethics defines the norms, principles, and standards of ethical conduct for editors, reviewers, and authors; establishes measures for identifying conflicts of interest and unethical behavior; and provides procedures for the retraction, correction, and refutation of published articles.
2.4 All participants in the publication process — including authors, editors, reviewers, responsible technical secretaries, and members of the editorial board — are required to unconditionally adhere to the principles, norms, and standards of publication ethics.
2.5 Unethical behavior includes any actions by authors, editors, or publishers such as self-reviewing their own articles, engaging in contractual or fraudulent peer review, using third-party or agency services to publish scientific research results, claiming false authorship, falsifying or fabricating research data, publishing false or pseudo-scientific materials, submitting manuscripts to other journals without the authors’ consent, disclosing authors’ materials to third parties, violating copyright or editorial confidentiality, and manipulating citations or engaging in plagiarism.
- Ethical principles for journal publishing
3.1 The activities of the journal publisher are governed by the legal framework of the Republic of Kazakhstan regulating this type of activity, namely:
1) Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 103-VIII of July 1, 2024, “On Science and Technology Policy”;
2) Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 451-I of July 23, 1999, “On Mass Media”;
3) Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 6-I of June 10, 1996, “On Copyright and Related Rights”;
4) Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 94-V of May 21, 2013, “On Personal Data and its Protection”;
5) Order of the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 20 of January 12, 2016, “On Approval of the Requirements for Scientific Publications for Inclusion in the List of Publications Recommended for Publishing Scientific Results”;
6) Order of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 529 of November 20, 2024, “On Approval of the Model Rules of Scientific Ethics.”
- Ethical principles for the editorial Board
4.1 The editorial board of the journal is guided by the principles of professionalism, objectivity, scientific integrity, and impartiality. The authors, members of the editorial board, the editor-in-chief, the deputy editor-in-chief, and the executive editor share ethical responsibilities related to the preparation of scientific publications and the dissemination of research results. Interactions between the editorial board and authors are based on transparency, honesty, courtesy, fairness, and objectivity.
4.2 Members of the editorial board must uphold the principles of freedom of opinion, respond to the scientific and professional needs of the journal’s authors and readers, and ensure that the commercial interests of authors, reviewers, or publishers do not influence editorial decisions. They are also required to take all reasonable measures to enhance the quality of scientific publications and to maintain data confidentiality at all stages of the publication process.
4.3 Decision on the publication of a manuscript. The decision to publish a manuscript submitted to the editorial office is made by the journal’s editorial board based on the results of its evaluation for compliance with publication guidelines, scientific content, formatting requirements, originality, and the outcomes of the peer review process. When making publication decisions, the editorial board is guided by the journal’s editorial policy and the principles of publication ethics. Articles found to contain evidence of plagiarism, breaches of scientific ethics, or copyright violations shall not be accepted for publication.
4.4 Editorial board members are responsible for the publication of articles with known signs of unethical behavior, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, excessive self-citations by authors, excessive citations from the journals "Theory and Methodology of Physical Education" and "Tourism, Leisure, and Hospitality," the presence of artificially generated text, or a conflict of interest.
4.5 If violations of publication and/or scientific ethics are identified in the preparation or publication of an article, the editor-in-chief, acting on the decision of the editorial board, must retract the publication. An article may be retracted either by the author(s) or by the editorial board of the journal.
4.6 Editors may retract published articles in the event of violations of publication and/or scientific ethics, based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), in the following cases:
1) There is irrefutable evidence that the data presented are unreliable or were obtained through unethical actions, such as data falsification;
2) The manuscript was found to have been previously published in another journal before its submission to Theory and Methodology of physical education / Tourism, Leisure, and Hospitality;
3) Plagiarism is detected in the article, including the unauthorized use of figures, graphs, tables, or other materials;
4) The article contains serious errors that could negatively affect other researchers and their work, such as calculation errors in statistical analyses or experimental mistakes;
5) Third parties submit copyright claims against the article or parts thereof;
6) The article contains information that contradicts the principles, standards, and norms of publication and/or scientific ethics.
If such violations are discovered, the journal’s editorial board conducts a thorough investigation. Based on the findings, the article may be retracted or withdrawn from publication. A retraction report is prepared, approved, and signed by the editor-in-chief, and a copy of the report is sent to the author for correspondence regarding the article.
4.7 Retraction of an article. Retraction may be warranted if there is clear evidence of serious errors, inaccuracies in data or images, or any form of misrepresentation (e.g., fraud, identity theft, or fictitious authorship) that calls into question the reliability of the results submitted by the authors for publication.
4.8 Equality of all authors. Editorial board members are responsible for deciding whether to publish submitted manuscripts. Manuscripts must be evaluated solely on their scientific content, without consideration of the authors’ race, gender, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, political views, or commercial interests.
4.9 Principle of confidentiality. During the manuscript review process (prior to publication), editors and editorial board members must not disclose information about the manuscript to anyone other than the authors, designated reviewers, and the publisher. Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential materials and must not be shown or discussed with third parties without the explicit permission of the scientific editor.
- Authors’ publication ethics principles
5.1 Ethical conduct of research. Published research results must be obtained in accordance with ethical standards and must not violate laws, regulations, or copyright.
5.2 Single publication. Authors must ensure that the manuscript submitted to the journal has not been simultaneously submitted to other publications. Submitting a manuscript to multiple journals at the same time is unacceptable and constitutes a serious violation of the principles, standards, and norms of publication ethics.
5.3 Manuscript authorship. The individual who has made the greatest intellectual contribution to the manuscript should be listed first if there are multiple co-authors. Each article must have a designated corresponding author, who is responsible for preparing the final version of the manuscript, communicating with the editorial board, and ensuring that all contributors who have made a significant intellectual contribution are included in the author list. All authors listed on the manuscript share responsibility for the content of the work.
5.4 Principle of originality. Authors guarantee that the research results presented in the manuscript represent original and independent work, and do not contain inappropriate borrowing or plagiarism. Plagiarism may be identified during the manuscript screening process using plagiarism detection tools.
5.5 Use of reliable methods. Authors must employ reliable and validated methods for data analysis, processing, and presentation, as well as for describing the research methodology. This includes clearly indicating the source of equipment and materials, statistical methods, and any other procedures necessary to ensure reproducibility of the results.
5.6 Principle of acknowledgment of sources. Authors are required to accurately cite all scientific and other sources used in their study. Any use of another author’s work or statements must be properly referenced with bibliographic citations. Information obtained from unreliable or non-scientific sources must not be included in the manuscript.
5.7 Correction of errors during publication. If errors or inaccuracies are identified at any stage of the publication process, authors are required to promptly notify the scientific editor and assist in correcting the errors. Corrections should be published on the journal’s website with appropriate commentary. If serious errors are discovered that cannot be corrected, the authors must retract the manuscript or article.
5.8 Principle of compliance with publication ethics. Authors are obligated to adhere to ethical standards in providing criticism or comments on research, as well as in their interactions with editors during peer review and publication. Failure to comply with these ethical principles constitutes a serious violation of publication ethics and may result in the withdrawal of the manuscript from review or publication.
- Principles of publication ethics for reviewers
6.1 Review of manuscripts must be conducted confidentially. Reviewers are informed that manuscripts submitted to them are the authors' intellectual property and are classified as confidential information. By submitting a manuscript for review, authors entrust reviewers with the results of their scientific work and creative efforts, which may impact their reputation and professional careers.
6.2 Principle of objectivity in review. Reviewers are obligated to provide an objective expert assessment of the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is unacceptable. All comments must be substantiated and justify the decision to accept or reject the manuscript. Reviews should be impartial, constructive, and clear, providing feedback that is useful and supportive of the authors’ work.
6.3 Principle of timely review. Reviewers are required to submit their evaluations within the deadline set by the editors, and no later than one month from the date the manuscript is received. If it is not possible to complete the review within the specified timeframe, the reviewer must promptly inform the scientific editor.
6.4 A reviewer who believes that their academic qualifications are inadequate or insufficient to make a decision when reviewing the submitted manuscript must promptly notify the scientific editor and decline to review the manuscript.
6.5 Principle of acknowledgment of sources. Reviewers must cite relevant scientific works that may have influenced the research results of the manuscript but were not cited by the authors. They are also responsible for alerting the scientific editor to any significant similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and previously published works of which they are aware.
6.6. If a reviewer has reasonable grounds to believe that a manuscript contains plagiarism, inappropriate plagiarism, false or fabricated materials or research results, they must not accept the manuscript for publication and inform the journal's editor of any identified violations of the principles, standards, and norms of publication and scientific ethics.
6.7 Principle of confidentiality on the part of the reviewer. A manuscript submitted to a reviewer for review must be treated as confidential material. The reviewer has no right to show it to and/or discuss it with third parties.
6.8 If, for reasons beyond the editorial control, the reviewer becomes aware of the authors' personal information, the reviewer must not discuss the review of the material with the authors, and furthermore, any proposed contact between the reviewer and the authors must not lead to the reviewer becoming a co-author.
- Conflicts of interest
7.1. A conflict of interest, as defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), is a conflict in which authors, reviewers, or editorial board members have underlying interests that could influence their judgment regarding published material. A conflict of interest arises when financial, personal, or professional circumstances exist that could influence the scientific judgment of reviewers and editorial board members and, as a result, the editorial board's decision regarding the publication of a manuscript.
7.2 The editor-in-chief of a journal must require all participants in the manuscript publication process to disclose conflicts of interest.
7.3 The editor-in-chief, editorial board members, and reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence the editorial board's decision. Editorial board members must recuse themselves from reviewing a manuscript if they have any competitive relationships related to the authors' research results, or if another conflict of interest exists.
7.4 When submitting a manuscript to the journal, authors declare that all sources of funding for the study are disclosed in the manuscript. They also indicate any commercial, financial, personal, or professional factors that could create a conflict of interest with respect to the submitted manuscript.
7.5 A reviewer should not consider manuscripts that could create a conflict of interest arising from competition, collaboration, or other relationships with any of the authors associated with the manuscript.
7.6 If a conflict of interest exists with the content of the manuscript, the executive editor must notify the editor-in-chief, after which the editor-in-chief will assign the review and examination of the manuscript to another editor/reviewer.
