Its publication ethics framework is intended to protect the reliability of the scholarly record, support fair treatment of authors and reviewers, and ensure that published work is presented honestly and responsibly.

The IJSPE research ethics policy is framed in line with recognized publication ethics standards. This does not imply formal membership in, certification by, or endorsement from any external ethics organization. It reflects the journal's commitment to accepted principles concerning authorship, originality, research integrity, conflict disclosure, confidentiality, impartial editorial judgment, and responsible correction of the published record.

These responsibilities are shared. Authors are responsible for the integrity of what they submit. Reviewers are responsible for confidential, objective, and timely assessment. Editors are responsible for fair decisions based on academic merit, journal scope, and reviewer reports. When ethical concerns arise, the journal should examine them carefully and respond proportionately.

Authorship and Responsibility

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made a meaningful intellectual contribution to the manuscript. A person should not be listed solely because of seniority, administrative authority, funding access, professional status, or general supervision. Likewise, individuals who made substantial contributions should not be omitted without justification.

All listed authors should have participated meaningfully in the conception, design, execution, analysis, interpretation, or writing of the work. They should review and approve the submitted version and be prepared to take responsibility for its accuracy and integrity. Authors should ensure that:

• every listed author made a substantial contribution;
• all authors approved the submitted version;
• all authors accept responsibility for the work;
• contributors who do not qualify for authorship are acknowledged appropriately;
• the order of authors reflects agreement among the contributors.

Any request to change authorship after submission should be explained clearly and agreed to by all affected contributors. Authorship disputes should be resolved among the contributors and, where appropriate, their institutions. The journal should not be used to settle personal or institutional disagreements over credit.

Originality, Plagiarism, and Duplicate Submission

Manuscripts submitted to IJSPE must be original. Authors must not present another person's ideas, words, findings, data, images, arguments, or intellectual contributions as their own. Sources must be acknowledged accurately and cited appropriately.

Plagiarism may include direct copying without citation, close paraphrasing that disguises another author's language, unattributed reuse of ideas, or use of another person's data or materials without proper acknowledgment. The same standards apply to published, unpublished, digital, printed, institutional, or privately shared sources.

Authors must also avoid inappropriate reuse of their own previously published material. Where a submission builds on earlier work, the relationship should be disclosed and the earlier work cited. Substantial reuse without transparent acknowledgment may mislead readers about originality.

A manuscript submitted to IJSPE must not be under simultaneous consideration elsewhere. Authors should not submit the same or substantially similar work to multiple journals at the same time. Previously published work should not be presented as new unless the journal has explicitly agreed to consider a clearly identified and justified form of republication.

If plagiarism, duplicate publication, or major unattributed overlap is identified before publication, the manuscript may be rejected or removed from consideration. If identified after publication, the journal may issue a correction, retraction, or other notice depending on the seriousness of the problem.

Data Integrity and Honest Reporting

Authors must report research honestly, accurately, and completely. Fabrication, falsification, selective manipulation, or deliberate omission of material information is incompatible with academic integrity.

Fabrication includes inventing data, observations, participants, results, sources, or events. Falsification includes altering, suppressing, distorting, or selectively presenting data or methods in a misleading way. Images, tables, charts, quotations, and statistical results must not be manipulated to create a false impression.

Methods should be described clearly enough for readers to understand how the research was conducted and how conclusions were reached. Authors should not conceal limitations, contradictory findings, or methodological weaknesses when these affect interpretation.

Results should be presented in a balanced manner. Authors should distinguish evidence from interpretation, inference, and opinion. Claims should remain proportionate to the data or analysis. Where uncertainty exists, it should be acknowledged rather than hidden.

Authors are responsible for the accuracy of references, quotations, figures, tables, and reported findings. Where legal, institutional, or ethical approval is relevant, authors should ensure that applicable requirements were met and provide information when requested.

Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest exists when financial, personal, professional, institutional, or other relationships could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, the preparation, review, or editorial handling of a manuscript.

Authors should disclose relevant funding, employment, consultancy, personal relationships, institutional interests, or competing commitments. Disclosure does not itself imply misconduct; its purpose is transparency.

Reviewers should decline assignments where a close personal or professional relationship, direct competitive interest, institutional connection, or other circumstance could compromise objectivity. Editors should not handle manuscripts where they have a conflict that could affect, or appear to affect, the decision.

Editorial judgment must remain independent of financial, commercial, institutional, political, or personal pressure. Where a material conflict becomes known after publication, the journal may issue a correction or disclosure statement.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are central to academic integrity in peer review. They must assess manuscripts fairly, confidentially, objectively, and within the agreed timeframe.

A manuscript received for review is confidential. Reviewers must not share it, discuss it with unauthorized persons, use its ideas for personal advantage, or disclose its contents before publication. Confidentiality also applies to supporting materials, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence.

Reviewer comments should be evidence-based, respectful, and constructive. Criticism should address the manuscript, not the author. Personal remarks, discriminatory judgments, unsupported accusations, and dismissive language are unacceptable.

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript fits the journal, whether its method or reasoning is appropriate, whether conclusions are supported, and whether the work makes a meaningful contribution. They should identify important omissions, inconsistencies, unsupported claims, or citation concerns where relevant.

Reviewers should complete reports within the requested period or notify the editor promptly if they cannot. If they suspect plagiarism, data manipulation, undisclosed conflicts, or another serious ethical issue, they should inform the editor confidentially rather than contact the author directly.

Editorial Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for ensuring that decisions are based on academic merit, relevance to the journal's scope, the quality of the manuscript, and independent reviewer reports. Decisions must not be influenced by an author's nationality, identity, institutional affiliation, professional status, or ability to pay publication charges.

The Article Processing Charge is applied only after acceptance. It must not influence whether a manuscript is reviewed, revised, accepted, or rejected.

Editors should protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and reviewer identities, avoid using unpublished information for personal benefit, and share confidential material only where necessary for legitimate editorial or ethical assessment.

When reviewer reports differ, the editor should assess the substance of the comments rather than rely on a simple count of recommendations. Editors should also recuse themselves where they have a conflict of interest.

The current IJSPE workflow is human-led and coordinated through email. There is no reviewer dashboard, reviewer login, automated round-tracking system, automated decision engine, or automated appeals process. Ethical responsibility therefore depends on careful communication, documentation, and accountable editorial judgment.

Ethical Concerns, Corrections, and Retractions

Ethical concerns may arise before or after publication. They may involve plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, duplicate publication, undisclosed conflicts, authorship disputes, misleading reporting, or other conduct affecting the reliability of the work.

The journal should assess each concern according to its evidence and seriousness. An allegation is not proof, but credible concerns should not be ignored. Where appropriate, the journal may contact the corresponding author or other relevant parties for clarification. If an issue falls within the responsibility of an institution, employer, or research body, the matter may need to be referred to that organization.

The response should be proportionate. A minor error that does not invalidate the central findings may require a correction. A major error, unreliable finding, substantial plagiarism, duplicate publication, or serious misconduct may require retraction. Where an unresolved concern materially affects confidence in the article, an interim editorial notice may be appropriate.

A correction should identify the problem clearly and preserve transparency about the published record. A retraction should explain the reason as clearly as circumstances permit. Retraction is not primarily a punishment; its purpose is to protect readers and the integrity of the scholarly record.

Any post-publication notice should remain accessible and be linked clearly to the affected article. Authors are expected to cooperate when genuine concerns are raised. Reviewers, readers, and other parties may report suspected problems in good faith, and the journal should distinguish evidence-based concerns from unsupported personal disputes.

Shared Commitment to Integrity

Publication ethics depend on everyone involved. Authors must submit honest, original, and responsibly reported work. Reviewers must provide confidential and objective assessment. Editors must make fair decisions free from commercial or personal influence.

The IJSPE publication ethics framework is intended to support trust in the journal's editorial process and published content. By applying clear authorship criteria, requiring conflict disclosure, protecting confidentiality, and responding responsibly to errors or misconduct, IJSPE seeks to maintain a reliable, transparent, and credible scholarly record.