The journal "Physical Education of Students" is committed to a high standard of editorial ethics.
  1. Editorial board is used the principles of ethics of scientific publications upon recommendations of International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Committee of Publication Ethics.
  2. Human ethics, informed consent. Editorial board endorses the principles embodied in the Helsinki Declaration and expects that all research involving the humans has been performed in accordance with these principles. All human studies must receive an approval by the researchers of Institutional Review Board. A copy of the relevant documentation should be attached to the manuscript. All investigations on human subjects must include a statement that the subject gave informed consent:
    - WHO ERC Informed consent;
    - WHO ERC Informed parental consent for research involving children.
  3. Conflicts of interests of persons who have direct or indirect relation to the publication of the manuscript or any information that the manuscript consist are settled according to the recommendations of COPE, ICMJE (Download form). Authors are also required to disclose any potential conflict of interest (Conflict of interest declaration and author agreement form).

Any cases of multiple, redundant or concurrent publication, plagiarism, fabricated data, guest authorship etc. show scientific dishonesty of the author (-s). All these cases will be announced and delivered to the corresponding educational institutions (place of work of the author (-s), scientific societies, scientific associations etc.).
The editorial office should acquire information on sources of financing of a publication, financial contributions of research institutions, scientific associations and other ("financial disclosure").

By submitting a manuscript for publication the author (s):
1. Agrees to license it under the  Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0);
2. Agrees with the principles of ethics of scientific publications upon recommendations of International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, COPE.


1. Introduction

1.1. Reliability of science is one of its qualitative foundations. Readers should be guaranteed that authors present the results of their work in a clear, reliable and honest manner regardless of the fact whether they are the direct authors of publication or they took benefit of specialized help (natural or legal person). Openness of information of any part contributing to preparation of a publication (content connected with material, financial etc. support) is a proof of ethical attitude both research worker and high editorial standards and also become an indication of good practice and social responsibility. The publication in reviewed journals is a way for scientific communication that makes a great contribution in the development of corresponding field of scientific knowledge. Thus, it is necessary to standardize the future ethical behavior of all involved in publication parties: authors, journal editors, publishing houses and scientific society.

1.2. Publisher supports and invests scientific communications, responsible for keeping all modern recommendations to the published article.

1.3. Publisher engages strictly supervise scientific materials. Our journal programs submit dispassionate “report” of scientific thought and research development. So, we realize the responsibility for proper presentation of such “reports” especially from the ethical aspects point of view of publication mentioned above.

2. Duties of Editors

2.1. Decision about publication
The editor of scientific journal by one-self and independently responsible for making a decision about publication in collaboration with corresponding Scientific society. The validity of reviewed manuscript and its scientific relevance is a basis of decision about publication. The editor can follow the policy of editorial board, even if he limited in topical legal requirements in relation to slander, copyright, legality and plagiarism. The editor can confer with other Editors and Reviewers (or public individuals of Scientific society) during making a decision about publication.

2.2. Fair play
The editor must appreciate intelligent content of the manuscripts without regard to race, sex, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, nationality or political preference of authors.

2.3. Confidentiality
The editor and Editorial board of the journal must not declare any information about the manuscript except for Authors, Reviewers, possible reviewers, academic adviser and Publisher.

2.4. Disclosure policy and Conflicts of interests

2.4.1. Unpublished material from the reviewed manuscripts forbidden to use in own research works without written agreement of the Author. Obtained during the review information or ideas with possible preferences must be confidential and do not use for self-interest.

2.4.2. Editors are refusal to accept to overview manuscripts in case of conflicts of interests as a result of competitive, joint or other relationships and relations with Authors, companies and other organizations connected with manuscript.

2.5. Control the publications
The Editor must inform the publisher (and / or to the corresponding Scientific society) about erroneous statements or conclusions in the manuscript if they discovered with the aim of making some changes or withdraw a manuscript.

2.6. Involvement and cooperation
The Editor and Publisher (or Scientific society) accept adequate retaliatory measures in case of ethical complaint about published materials or reviewed manuscripts. Such measures include cooperation both with Authors of manuscript and argumentation of corresponding complaint or demand; they can also mean the cooperation with corresponding organizations and scientific centers.

3. Duties of Reviewers

3.1. Influence on the decision of Editorial board
Reviewing helps the Editor to make a decision about the manuscript and by cooperation with the Authors to raise the quality of the manuscript. Reviewing is an essential component of formal scientific communications, it’s a “heart” of scientific approach. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

3.2. Executive functions
Any selected reviewer who feels low skills in reviewing the manuscript or has not enough time for reviewing must inform the Editor and ask to be excluded.

3.3. Confidentiality
Any manuscript received for review must be considered as confidential document. The reviewed manuscript cannot be opened and discussed with any person if the Editor will confer emergency power on him.

3.4. Requirements and objectivity
Reviewers must give an objective appraisal of results. Personal critic is unacceptable. Reviewers should clear and with arguments express an opinion.

3.5. Acknowledgement of source materials
Reviewers should identify relevant research works 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. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

3.6.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

3.6.2. 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.

4. Duties of Authors

4.1.Reporting standards

4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

4.2. Data Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with the manuscript for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

4.3. Originality and Plagiarism

4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s article as the author’s own article, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s article (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describe essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal previously published articles.

4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g., clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of interested journals must not agree to the secondary publication, which reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

4.5. Acknowledgement of Source materials
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must be acknowledged. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

4.6. Authorship to the manuscript

4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included to the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its submission for publication.

4.6.3. It is unacceptable to mention as authors persons whose contribution to the research has been scanty or actually non-existent (the so-called “guest authorship”). It is likewise inappropriate to conceal information on the contribution of persons who have actually participated in the creation of the publication. This should be recognized in form of acknowledgements at the end of the text or by including this person as a co-author. “Ghostwriting” and “guest authorship” are manifestations of scholarly unreliability.

4.7. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict 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.

4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

4.9. Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the manuscript. If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the manuscript.

5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)

5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

5.2. The publisher should support journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.

5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.

5.4. Publisher should provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.

Plagiarism Policy

The editorial board is very strict regarding plagiarism. The journal believes that taking the ideas and work of others without giving them credit is unfair and dishonest. Copying even one sentence from someone else manuscript, or even one of your own that has previously been published, without proper citation is considered plagiarism-use your own words instead. The editorial board retains the absolute authority to reject the review process of a submitted manuscript if it subject to minor or major plagiarism and even may cancel the publication upon the complaint of victim(s) of plagiarism. When dealing with cases of a possible misconduct JOURNAL follows the ethics flowcharts developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Journal document all incidents of scientific dishonesty especially of violation of ethical principles followed in science.
Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript (the journal uses COPE's guidance in form of flowchart). If the Editors or Reviewers detect plagiarism or text borrowing at any stage before the publication of the manuscript, the Author (s) shall be warned of the need to ascertain whether the detected case of plagiarism is actually the Author’s borrowing, or, on the contrary, the said borrowing actually belongs to the Author as intellectual property but has been borrowed by another person and published, i.e. such material does not present a case of plagiarism for the paper in question. If the latter is not the case, the Author is suggested to rewrite the text or add references to their own source document. If plagiarism percentage is over 15%, such paper can be rejected.
Plagiarism check policy. Manuscripts where plagiarism has been detected are assessed according to the percentage of plagiarism found: if the share of borrowings is under 15%, the manuscript is returned to the Authors immediately for revision. The Authors are recommended to review cases of text borrowings and plagiarism, and resubmit the new version of the manuscript. If the share of borrowings is over 15%, the manuscript shall be rejected outright (without editorial review). The percentage of plagiarism is calculated by software and also assessed manually.
Plagiarizing your own work (self-plagiarism). The editorial board does not support the Authors in excessive use of quotations and fragments from their own papers, though it does not ensure substantiated moderate use of the said elements in order to clarify the verbalized idea, or to present an appropriate reference to a research work completed and published before.
Plagiarism after publication (the journal uses COPE's guidance in form of flowchart). If plagiarism is detected after publication, the Journal will conduct an investigation. If plagiarism is found, the journal editorial office will contact the author's institute and funding agencies. The paper containing the plagiarism will be marked on each page of the PDF. Depending on the extent of the plagiarism, the paper may also be formally retracted. The journal uses Retraction Guidelines – COPE.


On rare occasions, when the scientific information in an article is substantially undermined, it may be necessary for published articles to be retracted. Journal will follow the COPE in such cases. Retraction articles are indexed and linked to the original article.
Journal provides free, immediate and permanent online access to the full text of all articles.



Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if:

• they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (eg, data fabrication) or honest error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error)

• the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)

• it constitutes plagiarism

• it reports unethical research

Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if:

• they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors

• there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case

• they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive

• an investigation is under way but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time

Journal editors should consider issuing a correction if:

• a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error)

• the author / contributor list is incorrect (ie, a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included)

Retractions are not usually appropriate if:

• a change of authorship is required but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings

Notices of retraction should:

• be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (ie, in all electronic versions)

• clearly identify the retracted article (eg, by including the title and authors in the retraction heading)

• be clearly identified as a retraction (ie, distinct from other types of correction or comment)

• be published promptly to minimize harmful effects from misleading publications

• be freely available to all readers (ie, not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers)

• state who is retracting the article

• state the reason(s) for retraction (to distinguish misconduct from honest error)

• avoid statements that are potentially defamatory or libellous

The purpose of retraction

Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to publications that contain such seriously flawed or erroneous data that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon. Unreliable data may result from honest error or from research misconduct.

Retractions are also used to alert readers to cases of redundant publication (ie, when authors present the same data in several publications), plagiarism, and failure to disclose a major competing interest likely to influence interpretations or recommendations.

The main purpose of retractions is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity rather than to punish authors who misbehave.

What form should a retraction take?

Notices of retraction should mention the reasons and basis for the retraction, to distinguish cases of misconduct from those of honest error; they should also specify who is retracting the article. They should be published in all versions of the journal (ie, print and/or electronic). It is helpful to include the authors and title of the retracted article in the retraction heading.

Retracted articles should be clearly identified as such in all electronic sources (eg, on the journal Web site and any bibliographic databases). Editors are responsible for ensuring that retractions are labeled in such a way that they are identified by bibliographic databases (which should also include a link to the retracted article). The retraction should appear on all electronic searches for the retracted publication. Journals and publishers should ensure that retracted articles are clearly marked on their own Web sites.

Retracted articles should not be removed from printed copies of the journal (eg, in libraries) nor from electronic archives but their retracted status should be indicated as clearly as possible.

Which publications should be retracted?

If only a small part of an article reports flawed data, and especially if this is the result of genuine error, then the problem is best rectified by a correction or erratum. (The term erratum usually refers to a production error, caused by the journal. The term corrigendum (or correction) usually refers to an author error.) Partial retractions are not helpful because they make it difficult for readers to determine the status of the article and which parts may be relied upon.

Similarly, if only a small section of an article (eg, a few sentences in the discussion) is plagiarised, editors should consider whether readers (and the plagiarised author) would be best served by a correction (which could note the fact that text was used without appropriate acknowledgment) rather than retracting the entire article which may contain sound, original data in other parts.

Retraction should usually be reserved for publications that are so seriously flawed (for whatever reason) that their findings or conclusions should not be relied upon.

If redundant publication has occurred (ie, authors have published the same data or article in more than one journal without appropriate justification, permission or cross-referencing) the journal that first published the article may issue a notice of redundant publication but should not retract the article unless the findings are unreliable. Any journals that subsequently publish a redundant article should retract it and state the reason for the retraction.

If an article is submitted to more than one journal simultaneously, and is accepted and published in both journals (either electronically or in print) at the same time, precedence may be determined by the date on which a license to publish or a copyright transfer agreement was signed by the authors.

In cases of partial overlap (ie, when authors present some new findings in an article that also contains a substantial amount of previously published information) editors need to consider whether readers are best served if the entire article is retracted or whether it would be best to issue a notice of redundant publication clarifying which aspects had been published previously and providing appropriate cross-references to the earlier work. This will depend on the amount of overlap. Editors should bear in mind that the main purpose of retractions is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity rather than to punish authors who misbehave.

Only published items can be retracted. Guidelines on dealing with redundant publications identified in submitted manuscripts can be found in the relevant COPE flowchart []. Posting a final version on a Web site constitutes publication even if an article has not appeared (or will not appear) in print. If an article is retracted before it appears in the print version of a journal, the electronic version should be retained on the journal’s Web site with a clear notice of retraction and it should be included on bibliographic databases (eg, with a digital object identifier [doi] or other permanent citation that will locate it) even if it does not appear in the printed journal and therefore does not receive a page allocation. This is because electronic versions may already have been accessed and cited by researchers who need to be alerted to the fact that the article has been retracted.

Who should issue the retraction?

Articles may be retracted by their author(s) or by the journal editor. In some cases, retractions are issued jointly or on behalf of the journal’s owner (eg, a learned society or publisher). However, since responsibility for the journal’s content rests with the editor s/he should always have the final decision about retracting material. Journal editors may retract publications (or issue expressions of concern) even if all or some of the authors refuse to retract the publication themselves.

When should a publication be retracted?

Publications should be retracted as soon as possible after the journal editor is convinced that the publication is seriously flawed and misleading (or is redundant or plagiarised). Prompt retraction should minimize the number of researchers who cite the erroneous work, act on its findings or draw incorrect conclusions, such as from ‘double counting’ redundant publications in meta-analyses or similar instances.

If editors have convincing evidence that a retraction is required they should not delay retraction simply because the authors are not cooperative. However, if an allegation of misconduct related to a potential retraction results in a disciplinary hearing or institutional investigation, it is normally appropriate to wait for the outcome of this before issuing a retraction (but an expression of concern may be published to alert readers in the interim – see below).

What should editors do in the face of inconclusive evidence about a publication’s reliability?

If conclusive evidence about the reliability of a publication cannot be obtained (eg, if authors produce conflicting accounts of the case, authors’ institutions refuse to investigate alleged misconduct or to release the findings of such investigations, or if investigations appear not to have been carried out fairly or are taking an unreasonably long time to reach a conclusion) editors should issue an expression of concern rather than retracting the publication immediately.

Such expressions of concern, like retraction notices, should be clearly linked to the original publication (ie, in electronic databases and by including the author and title of the original publication as a heading) and should state the reasons for the concern. If more conclusive evidence about the publication’s reliability becomes available later, the expression of concern should be replaced by a notice of retraction (if the article is shown to be unreliable) or by an exonerating statement linked to the expression of concern (if the article is shown to be reliable and the author exonerated).

Should retraction be applied in cases of disputed authorship?

Authors sometimes request that articles are retracted when authorship is disputed after publication. If there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings or the reliability of the data it is not appropriate to retract a publication solely on the grounds of an authorship dispute. In such cases, the journal editor should inform those involved in the dispute that s/he cannot adjudicate in such cases but will be willing to publish a correction to the author/contributor list if the authors/contributors (or their institutions) provide appropriate proof that such a change is justified.

(For authorship disputes occurring before publication, see the relevant COPE flowcharts. COPE flowcharts - 04A and COPE flowcharts - 04B

Can authors dissociate themselves from a retracted publication?

If retraction is due to the actions of some, but not all, authors of a publication, the notice of retraction should mention this. However, most editors consider that authorship entails some degree of joint responsibility for the integrity of the reported research so it is not appropriate for authors to dissociate themselves from a retracted publication even if they were not directly culpable of any misconduct.

Are there grounds for legal proceedings if an author sues a journal for retracting, or refusing to retract, a publication?

Authors who disagree with a retraction (or whose request to retract a publication is refused) sometimes threaten journal editors with legal action. Concern over litigation can make editors reluctant to retract articles, especially in the face of opposition from authors.

Journals’ instructions for authors should explain the retraction procedure and describe the circumstances under which articles might be retracted. This information should be incorporated (eg, by references) into any publishing agreements and brought to the authors’ attention. However, even if the publishing agreement or journal instructions do not set out specific conditions for retraction, authors usually would not have grounds for taking legal action against a journal over the act of retraction if it follows a suitable investigation and proper procedures.

However, legal advice may be helpful to determine appropriate wording for a notice of retraction or expression of concern to ensure that these are not defamatory or libellous. Nevertheless, retraction notices should always mention the reason(s) for retraction to distinguish honest error from misconduct.

Whenever possible, editors should negotiate with authors and attempt to agree a form of wording that is clear and informative to readers and acceptable to all parties. If authors consent to the wording of a retraction statement, this provides defense against a libel claim. However, prolonged negotiations about wording should not be allowed to delay the publication of a retraction unreasonably and editors should publish retractions even if consensus cannot be reached.

Open Access Policy

All Open Access articles distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Articles published in the Journal are made freely available to readers immediately upon publication.
Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition: this means that articles have free availability on the public Internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from having access to the Internet itself.

Self-Archiving Policy

Authors of articles are permitted to self-archive the submitted (preprint) version of the article at any time, and may self-archive the accepted (peer-reviewed) version. The Authors may deposit published version of the article.
On submission of their manuscript, authors may deposit the submitted version in their personal, institutional, or online pre-print repository. The first page of the manuscript must clearly display the following wording: “This paper is a preprint of a paper submitted to journal Physical Education of Students”.
If the paper is rejected, authors must remove all mention of the journal.
The author may deposit post-print version of the paper (accepted version of the manuscript after peer-review and content amendments, but before copyediting, typesetting and proof correction) to the author's personal website, provided that it is non-commercial, and to the repository of the author's institution with acknowledgement of the Journal (acknowledgement should be made as follows: “This is an accepted peer-reviewed version of the paper. The published version of the article is available at “Physical Education of Students" at[doi of the article]”).
Published version of an open-access article. The Author may deposit published version of the paper (final edited and typeset version that is made publicly available by the Publisher and can be considered an article) to any institutional repository, and distribute and make it publicly available in any way with acknowledgement to the the Journal (acknowledgement should be made as follows: “This is a published version of the paper, available at "Physical Education of Students" at[doi of the article]”).

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.
Data Privacy Policy.
The data collected from registered and non-registered users of this journal falls within the scope of the standard functioning of peer-reviewed journals. It includes information that makes communication possible for the editorial process; it is used to inform readers about the authorship and editing of content; it enables collecting aggregated data on readership behaviors, as well as tracking geopolitical and social elements of scholarly communication.
This journal’s editorial team uses this data to guide its work in publishing and improving this journal. The data will not be sold by this journal nor will it be used for purposes other than those stated here. The authors published in this journal are responsible for the human subject data that figures in the research reported here.
Those involved in editing this journal seek to be compliant with industry standards for data privacy. Journal endeavors to comply with all laws and regulations that apply to the gathering and use of personal information.

Further reading


SoxHC & RennieD. Researchmisconduct, retraction, andcleansingthemedicalliterature: lessonsfromthePoehlmancase. Annals of Internal Medicine 2006;144:609-13

Nath SB, Marcus SC & Druss BG. Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes? MJA 2006;185:152-4

BuddJM. Sievert M, Schultz TR. Phenomena of retraction. JAMA 1998;280:296-7

© 2009 COPE. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

September 2009 Elizabeth Wager, Virginia Barbour, Steven Yentis, Sabine Kleinert on behalf of COPE Council.

Drawing up the items of the publication ethics policy of the journal Editors followed the recommendations of:
- Elsevier publisher (download PDF);
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (download PDF); RETRACTION GUIDELINES - COPE);
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) (more... Conflicts of Interest), (more... Recommendations), (more... Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors).