• JOURNAL INFO
  • editorial board
  • editorial staff
  • indexation
  • list of reviewers
  • about us
  • contact us
• READ
  • current issue
  • 
  • previous issues
• SEARCH
• FOR AUTHORS
  • editorial policy
  • Publishing Ethics & Publication Malpractice Statement
  • preparation of the manuscript
  • download
• SUBSCRIBE

Publishing Ethics & Publication Malpractice Statement

All parties involved in publishing in Baltic Journal of Health and Physical Activity, i.e. the Author, the Editor and Editorial Office, Reviewers and the Publisher, are expected to observe the following standards of ethical behaviour.

Publication costs: The entire process of publishing an article is free of charge; the authors are not charged any fee at any stage of the process. Likewise, publication of the article the journal’s website www.balticsportscience.com is not subject to any charges. Since the primary version of BJHPA is an online one, the Editorial Office is not obliged to present the Author(s) and Reviewers with paper copies of the journal.

Open access: Articles in the journal are made available based on the principles of Open Access as contained in the Creative Commons license, more specifically on the principles of CC BY-NC-ND (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Monitoring the ethical standards: The editorial board monitors the ethical standards of scientific publication and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices.

Fair play: The submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual and scientific content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, citizenship, or political ideology. Baltic Journal of Health and Physical Activity ensures the publication process which is free from any bias.

Publication decisions: The Editor is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should or should not be published. The decision to accept or reject a paper for publication is based on its importance, originality, clarity, and its relevance to the scope of the journal.

Confidentiality: The Editor and the members of the Editorial Board/Office must ensure that all materials submitted to the journal remain confidential while under review. They must not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript and the content of the research therein to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.

Disclosure and conflict of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted manuscript must not be used by the editor and the editorial board in their own research without written consent of authors. Editors must not compromise intellectual and ethical standards in this respect.

Maintaining the integrity of the academic record: The editors will guard the integrity of the published academic record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Plagiarism and fraudulent data is unacceptable.

Editorial board is always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

BJHPA editors will consider retracting a publication if:

• they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error);
• the article (or major parts of the article) has been published elsewhere despite the Author’s declaration;
• the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (cases of redundant publication);
• it constitutes plagiarism or reports unethical research.

Notice of the retraction should be linked to the retracted article (including the title and authors in the retraction heading); it should clearly identify the retracted article and state who is retracting the article. Reason(s) for retraction should also be provided to distinguish honest error from misconduct.

Retracted articles will remain in electronic archives, but their retracted status will be indicated as clearly as possible.

Reporting standards: Authors of original articles should present an accurate account of the conducted research and an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. The paper should contain sufficient details and references to allow others to replicate the study. The fabrication of results or making fraudulent or inaccurate statements is deemed unethical behaviour and may result in rejection or retraction of a manuscript or a published article.

Originality and plagiarism and acknowledging sources: Authors should ensure that they have written an entirely original work, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this needs to be properly cited and referenced. Proper acknowledgment of others’ work must always be given. The authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the scope of the reported work. Plagiarism and fraudulent data is unacceptable.

Data access retention: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data for editorial review; they should be prepared to provide public access to such data and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication of their paper.

Multiple or concurrent publication: In general, Authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Authorship of the manuscript: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, execution, or interpretation of the report study. All those who have made contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. All activities associated with scientific unreliability, especially with “ghostwriting” and “guest authorship” will be exposed and documented. In case of suspicion of such situations taking place, action will be taken in compliance with the rules prepared by COPE (https://publicationethics.org/.

Fundamental errors in the published works: When the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

In short: If any suspicion of the author’s ethical unreliability is found, the process of publishing the article is suspended, while the already published article is still placed at the journal’s website (until the case has been explained). Meanwhile, the editors examine the situation. If, in the Editors’ opinion, the charge is confirmed, the Author (or the Corresponding Author) is informed of this fact and the Editors expect their response to the alleged charges within 2 weeks. Depending on the Author’s response, further actions will be taken in which the editors will follow the COPE guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/). In case the Author (or the Corresponding Author) fails to respond or their response is deemed inadequate, the Editors shall take the following actions: (1) an already published article is retracted, and in the case of an article being processed – this process is suspended; (2) the Author/Authors and the Reviewers are informed of the situation, (3) the Author/Authors superiors are also informed of the situation.

Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer reviews assist the Editor in making editorial decisions and may help Authors to improve the scientific rigour of their manuscript.

Promptness: Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to assess the research reported in the manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should notify the editor immediately and excuse himself/herself from the review process.

Confidentiality: Reviewers receive a blind copy of the manuscript and they are not informed of the Author’s name and affiliation. All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except those authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively without any bias to the country in which the research has been conducted, the subjects’ race, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewers should identify the relevant published work that has not been cited by authors. Any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper should be reported to the editor.

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 evaluating manuscripts in which they have (or suspect having) conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relations with any of the authors, companies, or institutions involved in writing the paper.