CHESS
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
INSTITUTE

Chess
education and science

Publication Ethics


The editorial office of the journal Chess: Education and Science defined its publishing ethics rules according to principles and approaches* of the Committee on Publication Ethics (https://publicationethics.org/)

  1. Authors responsibility
    • Authors should guarantee that the research being reported has been conducted appropriately, reliable methods of data analyses and display are used obtained results are presented honestly and without falsification or inappropriate data manipulation.
    • Authors should guarantee that submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language. Work should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication.
    • Authors should inform editors if findings have been published previously or if multiple reports or multiple analyses of a single data set are under consideration for publication elsewhere. Authors should provide copies of related publications or work submitted to other journals.
    • Translations and adaptations for different audiences should be clearly identified as such, should respect relevant copyright conventions and permission requirements. If in doubt, authors should seek permission from the original publisher before republishing any work.
    • Authors should alert the editor promptly if they discover an error in any submitted, accepted or published work. Authors should cooperate with editors in issuing corrections or retractions when required.
    • Authors should take collective responsibility for the purity and presentation of the research. If authors take responsibility only for certain aspects of the research and its reporting, this should be specified in the publication.
    • Authors should respond appropriately to post-publication comments and published correspondence. They should attempt to answer correspondents’ questions and supply clarification or additional details where needed.
    • Authors should inform the editor if they withdraw their work from review, or choose not to respond to reviewer comments after receiving a conditional acceptance.
    • Authors should respond to reviewers comments in a professional and timely manner.
    • Authors should respect publishers requests for press embargos and should not generally allow their findings to be reported in the press if they have been accepted for publication (but not yet published) in a scholarly publication.
    • Authors and their institutions should liaise and cooperate with publishers to coordinate media activity (e.g. press releases and press conferences) around publication. Press releases should accurately reflect the work and should not include statements that go further than the research findings.
  2. Editorial confidentiality
    • Editors must protect the confidentiality of authors material and remind reviewers to do so as well.
    • Editors are generally under no obligation to provide material to lawyers for court cases.
    • Editors should not give any indication of a papers status with the journal to anyone other than the authors.
    • In the case of a misconduct investigation, it may be necessary to disclose material to third parties (e.g., an institutional investigation committee or other editors).
    • Editors should protect reviewers’ identities unless operating an open peer review system.
    • If reviewers wish to disclose their names, this should be permitted.
    • If there is alleged or suspected reviewer misconduct it may be necessary to disclose a reviewers name to a third party.
  3. Honesty and transparency
    • Publications should provide sufficient detail to permit experiments to be repeated by other researchers.
    • Reports of research should be complete. They should not omit inconvenient, inconsistent or inexplicable findings or results that do not support the authors or sponsors hypothesis or interpretation.
    • All sources of research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, supply of equipment or materials, and other support (such as specialist statistical or writing assistance) should be disclosed.
    • Authors should disclose the role of the research funder(s) or sponsor (if any) in the research design, execution, analysis, interpretation and reporting.
    • Authors should disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests and relationships that might be considered likely to affect the interpretation of their findings or which editors, reviewers or readers might reasonably wish to know. This includes any relationship to the journal, for example if editors publish their own research in their own journal.
    • Research funders and sponsors should not be able to veto publication of findings that do not favour their product or position. Researchers should not enter agreements that permit the research sponsor to veto or control the publication of the findings (unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as research classified by governments because of security implications).
    • Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible.
    • Authors should not copy references from other publications if they have not read the cited work.
    • New findings should be presented in the context of previous research. The work of others should be fairly represented. Scholarly reviews and syntheses of existing research should be complete, balanced, and should include findings regardless of whether they support the hypothesis or interpretation being proposed. Editorials or opinion pieces presenting a single viewpoint or argument should be clearly distinguished from scholarly reviews.
    • If findings from small studies and those that fail to reach statistically significant results can be combined to produce more useful information (e.g. by meta-analysis) then such findings should be published
    • Data, text, figures or ideas originated by other researchers should be properly acknowledged and should not be presented as if they were the authors own.
    • Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
    • The manuscripts are screened for plagiarism with eTXT (https://www.etxt.ru/antiplagiat/) or Advego (https://advego.com/antiplagiat/#plagiatus-programma-proverki-unikalnosti)applications.
  4. Appropriate authorship and acknowledgement
    • The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals contributions to the work and its reporting.
    • In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section.
    • Responsibility for the correct attribution of authorship lies with authors themselves or their working institutions. Research institutions should promote and uphold fair and accepted standards of authorship and acknowledgement. When required, institutions should adjudicate in authorship disputes and should ensure that due process is followed.
    • Institutions and journal editors should encourage practices that prevent guest, gift, and ghost authorship.
    • All authors should agree to be listed and should approve the submitted and accepted versions of the publication. Any change to the author list should be approved by all authors including any who have been removed from the list.
    • The corresponding author should act as a point of contact between the editor and the other authors and should keep co-authors informed and involve them in major decisions about the publication (e.g. responding to reviewers’ comments).
  5. Responsible reporting of research involving humans
    • If requested by editors, authors should supply evidence that reported research received the appropriate approval and was carried out ethically (e.g. copies of approvals, licences, participant consent forms).
    • Researchers should not generally publish or share identifiable individual data collected in the course of research without specific consent from the individual (or their representative).