This journal adheres to the rules of ethics in publications, is subject to the rules of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows the implementing regulations of the Law on Prevention and Combating Fraud in Scientific Works.
Guide to Authors on the Policy of the Journal of Research in Sports Nutrition on Research Ethics Issues
Articles are published in this journal that are based on original and applied research. Researchers who submit an article for publication are committed to the fact that this article is the result of their own research and that of their colleagues and have not submitted the article to another journal for publication at the same time, and upon receiving the journal’s response, they are also committed to not submitting the article to other journals. Author commitment forms and no conflict-of-interest declaration forms can be obtained from the links provided in the author guide.
Publication Ethics in the Journal of Research in Sports Nutrition
The Journal of Research in Sports Nutrition is a bilingual Persian and English journal published by the University of Kurdistan. The publication ethics policy of this journal is based on the international principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Members of the editorial board and scientific advisors, editors, authors, referees, editors and readers must comply with these ethical principles when collaborating with this journal. In case of any violation by researchers, the journal will act according to international rules (COPE). The detailed principles of the Publication Ethics Committee are available at the following address: http://publicationethics.org
Respect for the author's rights regarding the waiting time for initial review of the article: If the initial review does not take place after 4 months from the initial submission of the article, the author may submit his article to another journal.
Editor, Editorial Board Members and Scientific Advisors
Acceptance of Articles
The editor of the journal is responsible for accepting or rejecting submitted articles. The editor, in consultation with the editorial board and scientific advisors, referees and editors, decides on the acceptance of the article, taking into account copyright, plagiarism and other issues related to the article.
Justice
The editor is responsible for judging articles only in terms of scientific merit and must act without favoritism or personal grudge or considering nationality, gender, religion and ethnic, racial and political issues.
Privacy
During the refereeing process, the editor, editorial board and scientific advisors should not disclose information related to the article to anyone other than the referees, authors and editors.
Confidentiality and non-personal use
All or part of the content of submitted articles that has not been published should not be used in the personal research of the editor, editorial board or scientific advisors without the written consent of the author. Confidential information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
Reviewers
Article Acceptance
Reviewers assist the editor, editorial board members, and scientific advisors in making decisions to accept or reject articles and contribute to the improvement of the articles by sending corrections to the authors.
Right to Refusal and Non-Rejection
Refusal and rejection of a request for review of an article is necessary and necessary depending on the time or situation. A reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to evaluate an article should refuse to review the article.
Confidentiality
Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the evaluation process and should not provide information about the article to anyone other than the editor without the written permission of the author.
Impartiality
Reviewers should evaluate articles objectively, impartially, and fairly. Reviewers should avoid personal bias in their recommendations and judgments.
References
Reviewers should identify and review the references to which the author has referred. Any conclusions or arguments that have been previously presented should be cited with the source. Also, reviewers should inform the editor if they notice any similarities or overlaps between the submitted article and another article.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should not use information or ideas they obtain during the review process for personal gain. Also, reviewers should avoid evaluating articles that they believe to be subject to a conflict of interest, whether financial, organizational, personal, or any other connection or affiliation with companies, institutions, or individuals related to the articles.
Authors
Reporting Findings
The corresponding author is responsible for the content of the submitted article. Authors are committed to reporting their findings in full and to be particularly careful in presenting and interpreting the findings. The article should have sufficient details and references so that other researchers can access the same data to repeat the study.
Originality
The authors must declare that the submitted version is the original and has not been previously published in part or in full anywhere else, neither in Persian nor in any other language. Authors cannot submit an article that is under review in whole or in part elsewhere, or has been previously submitted to another journal, to the Journal of Research in Sports Nutrition.
Authorship
All authors listed in the article must have participated and collaborated seriously in writing the article and are accountable for the results. The credit and privilege of authorship or authorship should be shared in proportion to the assistance in writing the different parts. The authors must accept responsibility for the article. The corresponding author submitting the article to the journal should send a copy or draft of the article to all co-authors and obtain their consent to submit the article to the journal and publish it.
Change of authors
The list and order of authors must be approved by all authors before submission of the article. Any addition, deletion, or rewriting in the list of authors must be explained by the corresponding author, stating the reasons, and approved by the other authors, and made before submission for review and only with the approval of the journal editor.
Acknowledgements
Authors should mention the centers or individuals who were influential in the formation of their research and acknowledge their help. Also, the sponsor of the research, if any, should be mentioned and acknowledged in this section.
Conflict of interest
Authors should discuss any conflicts of interest that may have affected the results of the research or the interpretation of the findings and indicate the sources of funding for their research.
Article Review
If the author(s) notices a significant error or inaccuracy in their work, they are required to promptly notify the editor of the Journal of Research in Sports Nutrition and cooperate in the review and revision process.
Article Review System
The journal uses a two-way, confidential peer review process to evaluate all articles.
Plagiarism
Plagiarism software (Hamiab Similarity Finder Software) is used to detect similarities between submitted articles and other published articles.
Open Access Policy
The journal provides open access to the content of articles based on the principle of making research freely available to the public in order to support the broad global exchange of knowledge.
Copyright
The process of registering, reviewing, refereeing and publishing articles in the journal "Sports Nutrition Research" is free for authors.
Users have the right to read, download, copy and print the entire text of the articles for free according to the international standard CC BY-NC 4.0 DEED.
The journal's policy on how to deal with plagiarism:
If an article is found to be plagiarized for the journal, the journal will blacklist the author/authors and if their article has been published, the article will be archived and the phrase "The article is plagiarized" will be included under the author/authors' names.
Types and examples of plagiarism
Plagiarism is one of the common violations related to the field of writing and can be considered an example of fraud or deception in research. The topic of plagiarism covers a wide range and many violations can be considered as examples of it. Various studies have cited many and varied examples of scientific plagiarism, which were broadly categorized as follows:
Scientific self-plagiarism (multiple publication and submission, dissemination);
Copying and quoting;
Publishing in another language without regard to the rules of usage (translation);
Failure to cite and inappropriate citation.
Plagiarism
This term, also known as "self-plagiarism" or "self-plagiarism," means that a person publishes their published work in a new format, with a new title, without any new words, and without proper citation and acknowledgement, and benefits themselves from the privilege of publishing a new work. Sometimes a person uses the data from research in different research and uses the results of the research to register more works and fill out their resume. In this case, a violation of the type of scientific underselling called scattered publication occurs, which can be considered one of the types of self-plagiarism because it seems that the person has misused their own work. Of course, it should be noted that the data from a research can be shredded when more than 50 percent of a typical article contains information; of course, this amount has been reported differently according to various studies.
The next case is when a person publishes his published work in another medium without any reference or citation, which is referred to as republishing or multiple submissions, or submits his work to several journals for publication at the same time, causing a waste of time and money by reviewers, editors, and journals. This violation is also known as resubmission or multiple submissions. In general, scientific plagiarism includes three subcategories: "scatter writing, republishing, and resubmission," and this violation (plagiarism) is a subcategory of scientific plagiarism.
This case may occur in at least three cases: direct quotation, indirect quotation, and repeated quotation.
Direct quotation is when a person directly copies the works of others without paying attention to the fact that when directly quoting, in addition to mentioning the citation, which is the main component, it is also necessary to use the quotation mark "" in Persian and the quotation mark "" in English. Also, for materials of about one paragraph or more, indentation of the text relative to the body of the article is usually used.
Indirect quotation refers to when a person uses the writings of others but expresses the ideas and content of others in their own words, and in fact the content is quoted. In such situations, the citation must be mentioned, and the citation cannot be omitted by justifying that transcription was not done. Paraphrasing (i.e. writing the material and ideas of others in your own words) and summarizing (shortening the material and ideas of others in the words of the author) are also subject to citation, and if not cited, it is considered plagiarism.
Repeated citation refers to when a person thinks that because he cites, he can copy the writings of others as much as he wants. Although there is no mention of the amount of use of the works of others, it is clear that the contents of an article cannot be quoted repeatedly, even with a citation, and claim that a new work has been created.
When a work is published, it is no longer the author's monopoly and, in effect, becomes a public good. Therefore, if an author intends to publish his work in another language and in another place, it is necessary to notify the editor of the "Second" magazine and also correspond with the editor of the "First" magazine and, in effect, obtain permission to reprint in another language. It is also necessary for the author to mention this in the main text of the article as a footnote in order to be honest with the audience. When publishing a translation of another author's work, the translator and editor of the Second magazine must also make sure that the name of the original author is mentioned in full in the translated article.
The violations that occur in citation are very numerous and diverse. A number of researchers classify citation violations in the field of research violations, but non-citation and incomplete and substandard citation (accidentally or intentionally) are by definition considered a form of plagiarism.
The Code of Ethics of the Journal of Research in Sports Nutrition, which is based on the guidelines developed by the Committee on Ethics in Publication (COPE), has set out duties and obligations for all interested parties involved in the printing and publishing process of the journal, including the editor-in-chief of the journal, members of the editorial board, internal manager, editor and publisher. These duties for the different groups of persons mentioned are as follows:
The following is a set of mandatory rules for the editorial standards.
General Duties and Responsibilities of the Editor
1.1 The editor shall be accountable for any material published in his/her journal.
This means that the editor shall
1.2 strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
1.3 strive for continuous improvement of his/her journal;
1.4 have approaches to ensure the quality of the material he/she publishes;
1.5 defend freedom of expression;
1.6 safeguard the integrity of the academic record;
1.7 meet the needs of the profession by maintaining ethical and rational standards;
1.8 be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, apologies and apologies when necessary.
The role of the editor may include:
Actively seeking the views of authors, readers, editors, and editorial board members or editorial team members on ways to improve the journal's approaches;
Encouraging and being aware of research related to review and publication and re-evaluating the journal's approaches in light of new findings;
Seeking to encourage publishers to provide appropriate resources and guidance from experts (e.g., designers and lawyers);
Supporting initiatives designed to reduce problems in research and publication;
Supporting initiatives designed to educate researchers about publication ethics;
Assessing the impact of the journal's policy on author and reviewer behavior and revising policies where necessary to enhance accountability and reduce behavioral problems;
Ensuring that any material published by the journal reflects and communicates the message of the paper.
2.1 Readers should be aware of the funders or conduct of the research and whether and, if so, what role the funders played in the research and its publication.
Best practice for the editor would include:
Ensuring that published reports and research reviews have been conducted by qualified reviewers (including statistical review where appropriate);
Ensuring that the non-reviewed parts of the journal are clearly identified;
Adopting approaches that enhance the accuracy, comprehensiveness and clarity of research reports, including technical editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists;
Considering improving the transparency policy to promote maximum transparency about the origin of non-research articles;
Adopting systems of authorship or participation that promote good practices (for example, so that the indexing accurately shows who has done the work) and reduce problems.
Therefore, the Journal of Research in Sports Nutrition assures readers that the writings of the journal's staff or editorial board are evaluated impartially.
3.1 The editor’s decision to accept or reject a manuscript should be based on the importance, originality, and clarity of the manuscript, its scholarly credibility, and its relevance to the journal’s objectives.
3.2 The editor should not change his or her decision to accept a manuscript unless serious problems with the manuscript are identified.
3.3 A new editor should not change the previous editor’s decision to publish a manuscript unless serious problems are identified.
3.4 A description of the review procedures should be published, and the editor should be prepared to justify any major deviations from the procedures described.
3.5 The journal defines a mechanism for authors to appeal against the editor’s decisions.
3.6 The editor should publish his or her expectations of authors in the form of guidelines. These guidelines should be updated regularly and referenced or linked to this code.
3.7 The editor should provide guidance on the standards required for authorship or who should be a contributor to such standards.
Best practice for the editor of this journal would include:
Regularly reviewing author comments and providing links to these guidelines;
Disclosing relevant conflicts of interest to all contributors and publishing corrections if conflicts of interest are identified after publication;
Ensuring that reviewers of manuscripts are appropriately selected (e.g., individuals who are able to review the manuscript and are not disqualified from conflicting interests);
Respecting requests from authors that no one else review their manuscript if it is acceptable and workable;
Invoking the guidance in the Coop process map where the author suspects problems or disputes;
Publishing details of how suspected problems were resolved (e.g., linking to the Coop process map);
Printing the date of writings and accepting articles.
4.1 The editor should set out their expectations of the reviewer, including the use of the submitted material for assurance purposes, in the form of guidelines. These guidelines should be updated regularly and referenced or linked to this code.
4.2 The editor should ensure that reviewers are aware of any potential conflicts of interest before submitting a manuscript for review.
4.3 The editor should have a system in place to ensure that reviewers’ judgments are protected unless there is an explicit review that the authors and reviewers are aware of.
Best practice for the editor would include:
Encouraging reviewers to challenge ethical questions and potential research and publication problems raised by the manuscript
(e.g. unethical research design, insufficient information to obtain consent or support from research subjects (including animals), inappropriate use and presentation of data);
Encouraging reviewers to challenge the originality of the manuscript and to be aware of the publication of material that is biased and plagiarized;
Provide reviewers with the tools to identify relevant publications (e.g., provide links to cited sources and search the bibliography);
Communicate reviewers’ comments to authors in full, unless the statements are derogatory or defamatory;
Ensure reviewers’ cooperation with the journal;
Encourage academic institutions to embrace review activities as a research approach;
Monitor reviewer performance and take steps to ensure its high standard;
Develop and maintain a database of appropriate reviewers and update it based on reviewer performance;
Avoid employing reviewers who frequently provide quick, poor quality, or late reviews;
Ensure that the reviewer database reflects their community at the journal and add new reviewers as needed;
Use a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers
(e.g., author suggestions, bibliography databases);
Follow the Cope process in cases where reviewer performance is problematic.
5.1 The editor should consider new editorial board members and provide them with guidance based on expectations and keep members up to date with the policy and new developments.
Best practice for the editor would include:
Having a policy in place for managing editorial board members’ writing to ensure impartial review;
Identifying qualified editorial board members who are actively involved in the development and good management of the journal;
Regularly reviewing the composition of the editorial board;
Provide clear guidance to editorial board members on expected roles and responsibilities, which will likely include:
Acting as a member of the journal’s executive committee
Supporting and promoting the journal
Seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g., from abstracts) and actively fostering submissions
Editing submissions for the journal
Taking editorial responsibility for, reviewing, and commenting on articles in their area of expertise
Joining and participating in editorial board meetings
Consulting with editorial board members periodically (e.g., annually) to review views on the journal’s governance, inform them of
Any changes in journal policy, and identify challenges ahead.
6.1 The relationship between the editor and the publisher and the owner of the journal should be based primarily on the principles of editorial freedom.
6.2 The editor should make decisions about publishing articles based on the quality and suitability of the articles for the journal, without interference from the owner or publisher of the journal.
6.3 The editor should have a written contract that regulates his relationship with the owner or publisher of the journal.
6.4 The terms of this contract should be in line with the COPE Code of Conduct for Editors of Journals.
Best practice for the editor will include:
Establishing mechanisms to resolve conflicts between himself and the owner or publisher of the journal through due process;
Continuous communication with the owner and publisher of his journal.
7.1 The editor should ensure that review in his journal is fair, impartial and timely.
7.2 The editor should have a system in place to ensure that material submitted to the journal remains confidential during review.
Best practice for the editor would include:
Ensuring that those involved in editorial work (including himself) are adequately trained and have access to the latest
guidelines, advice and evidence on journal review and management;
Being aware of research on review and technological developments;
Adopting the most appropriate review methods for the journal and its research community;
Periodically reviewing review practices for possible improvement;
Referring problematic issues to the COP, particularly when questions are raised that are not answered in the COP process, or when new problems are suspected for the journal;
Having a meeting with a ruling to adjudicate complaints that they have been unable to resolve.
8.1 The editor should take reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material he publishes, given that journals and sections
within journals will have different objectives and standards.
Best practice for the editor would include:
Having a system for identifying misinformation (e.g., misplaced photographs or plagiarized text)
when speculation arises;
Making layout decisions based on evidence related to factors that enhance the quality of reporting, rather than on aesthetic considerations or personal preference.
9.1 Editors should adhere to the principles of confidentiality in their judgments. Regardless of domestic law, they should always keep confidential information about individuals obtained during research or professional interactions (e.g. between a doctor and a patient). It is therefore always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from individuals who may be known or identifiable by others (e.g. from reports or photographs).
Best practice for editors would include:
Publish their policy on publishing personal information (e.g. personal information or images) and explain this fully to the author;
Encouraging ethical considerations (e.g. research involving humans and animals)
11.1 The editor should ensure that the research they publish is conducted in accordance with internationally accepted ethical guidelines
(e.g. the Declaration of Helsinki for clinical research and the AERA and BERA guidelines for academic research)
11.2 The editor should ensure that all research has been approved by an appropriate body, where available
(e.g. an ethics committee). However, the editor should be aware that such approval does not guarantee the ethics of the research.
Best practice for the editor would include:
Being prepared to request evidence of the ethics of the research and asking authors about ethical aspects
(such as how participant consent was obtained or the method used to minimize animal suffering) if concerns arise or need clarification;
Ensuring that clinical trials are reported in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice and other guidelines relevant to ensuring participant safety;
Ensuring that reports of experiments or studies conducted on animals are conducted in accordance with the World Health Organization and Human Services Guidelines for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals or other relevant guidelines;
Designating a journal ethics committee or advisor to advise on specific matters and periodically reviewing the journal's policy.
12.1 The editor is required to take action when violations or indications of violations are observed. This duty includes both published and unpublished articles.
12.2 The editor should not simply reject articles suspected of violations. He or she should ethically pursue such cases.
12.3 The editor should follow the Coop process wherever possible.
12.4 The editor should first seek a response to suspected violations. If no satisfactory response is found, the editor should seek an investigation from the staff, the institution, or some other competent person.
12.5 The editor should make every effort to ensure that a proper investigation of the violation is carried out; if this is not the case, the editor should make every effort to find a solution to the problem. This is a difficult but important task.
13.1 Errors or mistakes in writing should be corrected promptly, based on their level of importance.
13.2 The editor should use the Cope guidelines in correcting errors.
Best practice for the editor would include:
Moving to reduce the amount of satirical material in print (e.g., all clinical cases should be recorded);
Ensuring that published material is archived in a secure manner (e.g., permanent repositories such as PubMed Central);
Having a system in place to allow authors to freely submit research papers.
14.1 The editor should be aware of intellectual property issues and work with their publisher to manage the potential for infringement of intellectual property laws and obligations.
Best practice for the editor would include:
adopting a system for detecting plagiarism (e.g. software to search for similar titles);
reviewing submitted articles (either routinely or when faced with suspicious cases);
supporting authors whose copyright has not been respected or who have been victims of plagiarism;
being prepared to work with the publisher to defend the author’s rights and pursue infringers
(e.g. by requesting retraction or removal from websites) regardless of whether the publication is in compliance with copyright.
15.1 The editor should encourage and be willing to consider persuasive criticism of the work published in the journal.
15.2 The author of the work criticized should be given an opportunity to respond.
15.3 Negative reports should not be ignored.
Best practice for the editor would include:
Freedom to investigate cases that challenge the material published in the journal.
16.1 The editor should deal with complaints promptly and be aware that unresolved complaints will lead to further complaints.
This mechanism and how unresolved issues are referred to the COP should be made clear in the publication.
16.2 The editor should follow the procedure set out in the COP’s complaints procedure.
17.1 Journals should have policies and systems to ensure that economic considerations do not interfere with editorial decisions (e.g., the advertising department should operate independently of the editorial department).
17.2 The editor should have a clear advertising policy regarding the content of the journal and the approaches required for sponsorship.
Best practice for the editor would include:
Publishing a general explanation of the journal’s source of income (e.g., revenue share from advertising, sales, sponsorship requirements, etc.);
Ensuring that the review sponsorship process is the same as for the journal’s own sponsorship;
Ensuring that items included in sponsorship are considered solely on the basis of academic merit and reader appeal, and that decisions about these requirements are not influenced by commercial considerations.
18.1 The editor should have a system for managing conflicts of interest, as well as those of his/her staff, authors, referees and editorial board members.
18.2 Journals should have a clear procedure for resolving submissions by editors, staff or editorial board members to ensure impartial review.
Best practice for the editor would include:
Publishing a list of shared interests (financial, academic or other) of editorial staff and editorial board members (which should be updated annually).
The Journal of Research in Sports Nutrition reviews all claims of copyright infringement, non-compliance with research ethics, plagiarism, and other relevant considerations and is committed to complying with all requirements in this regard.
Reviewing in the Journal of Research in Sports Nutrition is conducted anonymously. No information that would lead to the identification of reviewers will be made available to authors at any stage, even after publication of the article.
2-1. Speed of Action:
In order to protect the rights of authors, the reviewers of the journal undertake to respond to referrals as quickly as possible and, if this is not possible for them, they will inform the journal so that another reviewer can be appointed.
2-2. Confidentiality:
The reviewers of the journal will consider the articles submitted to them for evaluation as confidential and will not provide any information about their content to others.
2-3. Impartiality:
Reviews should be conducted impartially. To achieve this goal, the opinions of the reviewers should be based on their arguments.
2-4. Care in citing sources:
Reviewers will exercise sufficient care to ensure that any material included in the article that is adapted or quoted from another source is identified by strictly observing the referencing criteria and the source used is included in the article.
The manner in which the authors of the articles perform, as the main providers of the journal's content, is of great importance to the Journal of Research in Sports Nutrition.
3-1. Originality of the materials:
The authors guarantee that the materials they submit to the journal are original and have not been previously published in any language, in any publication, whether domestic or foreign.
3-2. Originality of the authors:
The person registering the article in the journal undertakes to include only the names of those who have made a significant contribution to writing the article as authors. The names of all those who have played such a role in writing the article must be included in the article as authors.
3-3. Compliance with the reference rules:
Any use of other sources, precisely and with full details of the source used, is specified in the article. In cases where copyrighted materials are used (such as tables, photographs or extensive quotations), the authors are obliged to obtain the express written consent of the copyright holder in advance and acknowledge it in their article.
3-4. Concurrency:
The authors undertake not to submit the articles submitted to the journal to another journal before their final assignment is determined. Submitting an article to more than one journal simultaneously is considered a violation, and the Journal of Research in Sports Nutrition will stop the review process if it becomes aware of this at any stage of the article review.
3-4. Conflict of interest:
If the authors have used financial resources from a specific institution or organization in their research, they must state this in their article.
4-4 Acceptance of the code of ethics:
If an intervention is performed on subjects, whether human or animal, that may cause the slightest complication or discomfort to the subject, it is mandatory to obtain a code of ethics from a reputable center.
In addition, the articles submitted by the authors must be original and any use of other research must be cited in the article with a reference to the source.
The research must be conducted carefully and objectively, and the data must be reported correctly.
The responsibility for the scientific content of the article lies with the author or authors.
Published articles must not have been previously published in any domestic or foreign journal. If this is observed, the article will be removed from the review process of this journal, and while reflecting the author's lack of commitment to other scientific journals in the country, Mayin Journal will not review other articles by that author.
The use of the journal's contents is free with full reference to the source.
