Publication Malpractice Policy

1. General Principles

MENTOR Journal of Educational and Sports Research maintains a firm commitment to academic integrity and ethical standards in scientific publishing. All individuals involved in the editorial process authors, reviewers, editors, and members of the editorial board must act in accordance with the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other recognized frameworks of research integrity.

Publication malpractice is understood as any intentional or negligent action or omission that affects the accuracy, originality, transparency, or reliability of the scientific work submitted to or published in the journal.

2. Forms of Publication Malpractice

2.1 Data integrity and validity

The following behaviors constitute malpractice:

  • fabrication, manipulation, alteration, or intentional suppression of data

  • presentation of unverifiable results without methodological justification

  • deliberate misrepresentation of methods, procedures, or findings

2.2 Authorship and contributions

The following are considered unacceptable practices:

  • attributing authorship to individuals who did not contribute to the manuscript (honorary authorship)

  • excluding individuals who did meet authorship criteria (ghost authorship)

  • modifying the order of authorship without documented agreement among all parties

  • submitting manuscripts with unresolved authorship disputes prior to submission

2.3 Originality and duplication

The following constitute malpractice:

  • simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal

  • redundant or duplicate publication of results without proper reference

Note: Practices specifically related to similarity or plagiarism are governed by the Similarity and Plagiarism Detection Policy available on the journal’s official website, which remains in force and is not modified by this document.

2.4 Unethical research practices

These include:

  • failure to obtain required ethical approval when applicable

  • concealment of information regarding informed consent or data anonymization

  • omission of relevant conflict-of-interest disclosures

2.5 Misleading citation practices

The following are considered malpractice:

  • excessive self-citation intended to manipulate metric indicators

  • unnecessary citation padding to benefit specific individuals or journals

  • unjustified imposition of references by reviewers or editors

3. Responsibilities of the Stakeholders Involved

3.1 Authors

Authors must:

  • ensure the accuracy and authenticity of the data presented

  • properly acknowledge contributions and sources of funding

  • disclose real or potential conflicts of interest

  • submit original work not under simultaneous consideration by other journals

  • assume responsibility for the entirety of the manuscript’s content

3.2 Reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for:

  • evaluating manuscripts objectively and maintaining confidentiality

  • reporting suspected malpractice through official channels

  • declaring conflicts of interest that may limit impartial evaluation

  • not using privileged manuscript information for personal advantage

3.3 Editors and Editorial Board

Editors must:

  • diligently manage reports of potential malpractice

  • request clarifications and documentation when reasonable doubts arise

  • act impartially, confidentially, and based on evidence

  • follow COPE recommendations when making decisions

  • refrain from intervening in cases where personal or institutional conflict of interest exists

4. Procedure for Handling Suspected Malpractice

In the event of a possible ethical breach:

Initial assessment:
The Editorial Board reviews available information and may request clarification from the corresponding author.

Evidence collection:
Additional documentation may be required (primary data, ethics certificates, authorship contribution statements, etc.).

Expert consultation:
If necessary, the journal may seek advice from independent experts or relevant institutions.

Decision:
Editorial actions will be determined according to the nature and severity of the case, following COPE guidelines.

Communication:
Authors will be formally notified of the conclusions and editorial decisions reached.

Important: Cases related to similarity or plagiarism are handled according to the journal’s Similarity and Plagiarism Detection Policy, currently in force.

5. Possible Editorial Actions

Depending on the findings and available evidence, MENTOR Journal may:

  • reject the manuscript

  • request ethical or methodological revisions before reconsideration

  • restrict future submissions from authors involved in serious misconduct

  • notify academic or funding institutions, when appropriate

  • record the case internally to inform future editorial decisions

6. Confidentiality and Record-Keeping

All evaluations related to publication malpractice are conducted under strict confidentiality. Editorial decisions are documented and stored privately for future reference within the editorial framework.

7. Commitment to Academic Integrity

MENTOR Journal of Educational and Sports Research reaffirms its commitment to ensuring that published research adheres to principles of quality, ethics, and scientific transparency. This policy aims to strengthen the trust of the academic community and promote responsible publication practices.