The domain efsupit.ro is original

Publishing policy

 

JPES promotes

Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (COPE)

https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing

Ethics publications and unfair practices

 Principles of professional ethics in the work of the editor and publisher

 Principles of professional ethics in the activity of the publisher The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for the quality of published articles. The validation of a paper in question and its importance must reflect the interest of researchers and readers in the novelty and originality of the scientific approach. The decision of the editor regarding the articles to be published must be taken on a clear basis stipulated in the publication requirements of the journal. These refer to:

 - The fidelity of the presentation, the representativeness and the academic importance of the proposed paper.

 - Protection and promotion of intellectual property rights and must not publish information if there is reason to believe that it is plagiarism or misconduct

 - Only the intellectual content, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, social organization or political philosophy of the authors, is decisive in choosing the best works.

 - Unpublished materials will not be used in any way in the interest of individuals or third parties, and information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential.

 Ethical principles in the reviewer work

 Peer review helps the publisher make editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with the author, can help the author improve his work. This is why a reviewer's actions should be impartial.

 - Any manuscript received for review should be treated as confidential documents. They must not be presented or discussed with others unless authorized by the publisher.

 - Evaluations must be performed objectively. The author's personal criticism is inadequate. Arbitrators should express their views clearly, with supporting arguments.

 - Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

 - Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

 

Principles that should guide the author of scientific publications

 The authors realize that they are responsible for the content, the arguments, the ideas promoted, the novelty and the fidelity of the research results.

 • The authors must present an accurate description of the research work carried out, as well as an objective discussion of its significance.

 -The results and conclusions should be accurately represented in the paper in order to be repeatable and applicable in practice.

 -Any fraudulent or inaccurate arguments made knowingly are unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

 - An author must confirm that he / she wrote the entire work in its original form, and if the author used the work and / or the words of others, then they were quoted or quoted accordingly. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

 - The author must always give adequate recognition to the work of others. The author must cite the publications that formed the basis of the reported paper. Privately obtained information, such as in conversations, correspondence or discussions with third parties, must not be used or reported without the express written permission of the source. The information obtained during the confidential review must not be used without the express written permission of the persons involved in these services.

 - An author should avoid publishing manuscripts that describe essentially the same research in several journals or primary publications. Sending the same manuscript to several journals at the same time constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

 - an author should not submit for examination a previously published paper or partially modified papers that investigate the same issue in slightly different situations

 - All contributors who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.

 -The corresponding author must ensure and confirm that all co-authors have approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

 - When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his or her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate with the editor to withdraw or correct the work. If the publisher finds out from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it has the obligation to notify the author and to withdraw or correct the work promptly.

 

 Actions in case of violation of publication ethics

 If there is a suspicion that the reviewer has appropriated the ideas or data of the author:

 The algorithm of actions is based on the COPE scheme "What to do if you suspect a reviewer has appropriated an author’s idea or data"

 If there are suspicions of ethical issues with the submitted manuscript:

 The algorithm of actions is based on the COPE scheme "What to do if you suspect an ethical problem"

 

Authorship identification

 Authorship identification means obtaining assurances that each author of the manuscript's group of authors has contributed to the research, in a certain part of it. In case of any doubts on the part of the editorial, which may be based, in particular, on the discrepancy between the content of the manuscript and the competence of one of the authors in terms of the field of sciences, the field of scientific interests, other publications of the given author, the editorial board requires the group of authors to distribute the contribution to the conduct of research and preparation of the manuscript, with a separate emphasis on the contribution of the author in respect of whom doubts arose. The guarantees of authorship are secured by the License Agreement between the Licensor (author) and the Licensee (Publisher).

 The process of identifying the author also involves preventing the appearance in the group of authors of ghost authors, guest authors and gift authors.    When such a situation is identified  the editors take action based on the recommendations of COPE, especially "How to recognize potential problems of author ”.

 

Policy on plagiarism and self-plagiats

 The journal does not publish material containing plagiarism or self-plagiarism Any submited  manuscript is checked for plagiarism or self-plagiarized with licensed software owned by the journal. Each identified case is subjected to further analysis to confirm the existence of appropriate attribution by the authors of the manuscript. If the lack of proper attribution (plagiarism) is confirmed, the manuscript is rejected without reconsideration. If self-plagiarism is found, the manuscript is rejected and a notice is sent to the author that his manuscript is not unique enough.

 Any other exceedances of the level of plagiarism, accepted by the journal at 20% - without references, will be notified to the authors. they will have a deadline and a new assessment of the result of the required changes to the incriminated parts of the text. Compliance with the required parameters leads to acceptance of the article for publication and rejection if these requirements have not been fully met.

 

Competing interest

 Conflict of interest

 When submitting a manuscript to the JPES, authors must declare the presence/absence of any competing financial and/or non-financial interests.

 In the interests of transparency and to help readers form their own judgments about possible bias, the JPES requires authors to declare any competing financial and/or non-financial interests in the work described.

 Authors should indicate all the information necessary to confirm transparency in terms of potential financial interests. If such a conflict is detected at the stage of reviewing, the reviewer is obliged to inform the editorial office of this and refuse to review this manuscript. The editorial in such a situation are guided by the recommendations based on the COPE schemes,  "What to do if a reviewer suspects undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript" and "What to do if a reader suspects undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article".

 

Rules for reject published articles

 The Regulation regarding the retraction of published articles includes the implementation of five processes:

 – initiation of an investigation regarding the need to retract a publication;

 – assessment of the possibility of retraction of a publication;

 – deletion of a published article;

 – formation of a notice of retraction of a publication;

 – consideration of the issue of introduction changes to the published article.

 

Handling complaints

 If complaints are received by the editorial office, their validity is checked. If the complaint is reasoned, it is considered by the editorial in accordance with the COPE recommendations.

 The complaint is accepted for consideration by the editorial if it is filed officially and does not have a defamatory nature.

 If the complaint has features of a defamatory nature or is not properly substantiated, the editorial office submits a request for the provision of facts and arguments in support of the validity of the complaint. If such facts and arguments are not provided, or they do not contain evidence sufficient to recognize the complaint as justified, the complaint is not considered.

 In the event that the complaint concerns an already published article and its validity is proven, the article recall policy applies.

 The editorial of the journal implements all procedures aimed at ensuring, guaranteeing and adhering to all ethical standards and principles of academic integrity.

 

Prevention of manipulation

 By manipulation, the editorial understands the following likely events: an attempt to use falsified data or plagiarism in the manuscript, an attempt to substitute the results of an independent examination of the manuscript, or create conditions that prevent an independent assessment of the manuscript by reviewers. In cases where there are suspicions of such actions or doubts about the results of the examination, the editorial office starts a procedure is in accordance with the COPE recommendations "How to spot potential manipulation of the peer review process".

 If the facts of manipulation attempts at the review stage are discovered, the editors are guided in choosing their actions by the COPE recommendations "What to do if you suspect peer review manipulation".

 

Archiving

 This journal distribut archiving content published in numerous libraries and information centers and ensures long-term storage in comprehensive archives The journal automatically restore damaged information. 

 

Publication policy regarding advertising

 Advertising placed on the pages of the journal must be directly or indirectly related to the subject of the journal, that is, contain information about products, technologies, services in areas related to the subject of the journal.

 Advertising is not integrated with the main content and are published on separate pages/tabs.

 

Copyright Notice

 The consolidation and conditions for the transfer of copyright (identification of authorship) is carried out in the License Agreement. In particular, the authors reserve the right to the authorship of their manuscript and transfer the first publication of this work to the journal under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY license. At the same time, they have the right to conclude on their own additional agreements concerning the non-exclusive distribution of the work in the form in which it was published by this journal, but provided that the link to the first publication of the article in this journal is preserved.

 

Peer Review Process

 The editorial board practices OPEN peer review. This process involves the following:

 First, the editors consider all manuscripts to assess their compliance with the journal subject matter and requirements.

Following the decision of the editors, the manuscripts submitted are sent to at least two external experts in the corresponding field.

Reviewers' comments are transmitted to the authors, together with possible recommendations for the manuscript revision. The editor informs the authors, whether the manuscript is adopted without revision or authors are given the opportunity to review the manuscript and submit it again, or the manuscript is rejected.

 

Open Peer Review details

 systematic review identified seven elements use in  different combinations and configurations across scientific publishing Broadly speaking, Open Peer Review refers to some combination of openness in:

    - author or reviewer identities

    - publishing peer review content

   -  participation of a wider community in peer review

    - interaction between authors, editors and reviewers

   -  open review before publication

    - post-publication commenting -

    - platforms that de-couple the peer review process from the publication process

 

We use collaborative evaluation

 Reviewers collaborate and send common comments or, in the same cases, discuss with the authors and editors during the review process, if necessary, with these 3 elements that we consider basic.

 -  the identities of the author or reviewer are or may be known We do not promote the blind system

 - the interaction between authors, editors and reviewers is essential and recommended especially in cases where additional information is requested regarding aspects of the research and the finalization of the final decision

 - open review before publication to select the best articles that are published online

 

Open Peer Review= We use an academic evaluation mechanism that provides the disclosure of each other's identities to the author and the referee at any time during the evaluation or publication process by colleagues ”. Then, the identities of the reviewer may or may not be revealed to the public. from our point of view there are 3 possible situations:

 1. The evaluation is positive =  the recommendations can lead to additions or minor changes in the content, or the article is taken over in full, can bring small improvements to the content but which does not change the general structure of the article. In this situation, only the editor communicates with the author based on the recommendations received from the reviewer. This is the most important and common form used by the journal. Its purpose is to select the best articles and promote original ideas as examples of good practice in the field. The identity of the reviewers may or may not be disclosed. The author can be contacted by the reviewer in order to have a very good collaboration regarding the best final version of the article subject to evaluation and publication. Usually the publisher makes the acceptance notification and minor recommendations for the author.

 2. The evaluation is negative =  the reviewers do not recommend the publication of the article due to the topic considered as lacking interest for the public, lack of originality and contribution that would generate readers' interest by the degree of applicability or lack of credibility of tools and methodologies used to argue conclusions. The identity of the reviewers remains confidential and the final decision of rejection is of the editor-in-chief who, based on the proposals received, may or may not agree with the potential representativeness of the article and decides to reevaluate or reject it definitively. This form involves most articles, the rejection rate is 1 to 3 and is used by the journal to remove from the list articles that do not meet the criteria for publication, are not of interest or have a poor use of research tools. The identities of the reviewers may or may not be disclosed at the request of the authors and if additional communication is required. Usually the publisher notifies but also the reviewer is free to communicate with the author if he deems it necessary. There are few cases in which an author of a rejected article requests clarification in order to improve his experience. The author may be contacted by the reviewer in order to request additional clarifications that may substantiate the final decision. Usually the editor notifies the rejection to the author and argues it in general terms regarding the most important aspects that do not recommend the article for publication.

 3. When the evaluation is unclear/nconsistent,= the article has both good and negative parts and the decision may be uncertain. In our open system, the corresponding author can be asked for additional information, he can collaborate with the reviewer or the editor in order to identify the new representativeness and good practice of the article or highlight based on this new information of other negative parts of it that lead to rejection.

 

Open Access Policy

 This journal is practicing a policy of immediate open access to published content, supporting the principles of the free flow of scientific information and global knowledge sharing for the common social progress.

 Open Access (OA) has become an important way to make research findings freely available for anyone to access and view. Open access serves authors and the wider community by publishing high-quality, peer-reviewed OA content.

 

Privacy Statement

 The editorial board pay special attention to hold all information in confidence that comes to the editorial board and has not been published yet. The basic principles the editors follow:

 All reviewers confirm the confidentiality of information with which they work up to the time of the paper publication.

If a reviewer needs help or advice of experts about a particular subject matter, the reviewers report to the editorial staff and get permission for such consultation.

The information, proposed by the authors to the editors, is not transferred to third parties.

All contact information, which the authors give to the editorial board, is used only by the editors and is not transferred to third parties.

 

 

GDPR - DATA PROTECTION STATEMENT

 The “Regulation” means the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 06 April 2016. The Regulation replaces the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC and is designed to harmonize data privacy laws across Europe for the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data. Where appropriate, terms used in this statement shall have meanings ascribed to them in the Regulation.

 In this regards JPES asks all authors of accepted articles to complete a signed document (Publication agreement) for  agree to these terms of publication and for the use of  personal data in JPES. Authors  must clearly agree and accept that personal data, name and surname, e-mail address, nationality, institutional affiliation will be stored and used online and / or reused for this purpose in all international data bases

 

Editing process

 Only those manuscripts that meet the standards of the journal, and fit within its sport science field, aims and scope, will be sent to expert reviewers.

 The journal editor is independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, guided by the results of  peer-review and the COPE principles. Arguments about the importance of this work to researchers and readers should always support such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policy of the editorial board of the journal and be limited by applicable legal requirements in relation to such matters as defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may consult with other editors or reviewers in making these decisions.

 

Deadline 30-40 days

 1. receiving the articles in the order of the waiting list, the list which is published online for the current month. No other article can be evaluated or published. JPES promotes openness and total transparency in the content and number of articles under evaluation

 2. The general revision is made by the editor in the sense of respecting the theme, the working technique, the consistency of the communication, the originality and the novelty.

 3 The in-depth specialized review of the selected articles is done

 4. After reviewing the selected articles they are sent for editing

 5. Here the editorial decision is final. If there are comment adjustments, additional requests from reviewers that need to be considered will notify the authors and await their response within a given timeframe.

 6. If there are no adjustments or corrections, the consent of the authors is requested to confirm the final version of the article, or the intention to make the last adjustments considered appropriate, then a package of documents accompanying the publication will have to be prepared.

 

 

Licesing statement                 

 The authors' publications are distributed under

 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported

 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

 You are free to:

 Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format

 The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

 

Under the following terms:

 ·         Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

 ·         NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

 ·         NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

 

JPES promotes an APC policy (Article Publishing Charge) - only for the accepted articles

 This fee is required in order to cover the costs of providing and maintaining a publication infrastructure, managing the journals, and processing the papers through peer-review and the editorial procedure The journal charges or publication fee is normally covered by: 

 1.The author's institution research funds, 

 2.The authors' own research funds.

 3.Various other research funds or grants

 4.In special cases, guest authors, invited by the scientific staff, JPES may award free grants publication for specific autors and  young PhD students or for well-known authors who can contribute to increasing the scientific quality of the journal

 

Terms of Payment

 The cost of one article submitted for publication and designed according to the requirements of the journal is 100 euro (6-8 pages)
Include: The prepress preparation of the article , editing in JPES format template, checking the tables, figures, design of the references list (design according to the standards, searching and adding DOI identifiers and setting the digital DOI identifier for your article)

Professional translation, proofreading or verification of translation of scientific articles into English is paid separately to the proofreading company approved and recommended by the us (at the express request of the author the chief editor may approve the use of another company if it meets the quality requirements and the purpose of the journal on the promotion of native English) The requirement is not restrictive to choose, but it is imperative on the quality of the English language. Our recommendation for Falcon Scientific refers to the experience gained over time with very good results based on a correct and advantageous collaboration.

The electronic version of the article is provided free of charge. All articles are published in open access current page and archive

The cost of one additional page, designed according to the requirements of the journal, is 10.00 EUR