Information For Authors
Requirements for ethical approval
All research should be conducted in a manner that respects the rights of all participants (including to privacy, confidentiality and anonymity as appropriate), causes no harm to participants or researchers, and requires the active, informed consent of all participants and where appropriate their parents, guardians or relevant responsible others.
The journal “Theory and Practice of Physical Culture” recognises that in a significant number of cases the involvement of an ethics committee may not be necessary. However, it expects all researchers embarked on research involving human participants or personal data to consider the ethical risks of their work and, in case of doubt, to seek appropriate advice.
In the first instance advice should be sought at a local level. Undergraduate and Postgraduate students should seek the advice of their supervisor or mentor. Staff, or any other person conducting research on University premises, should seek advice from the local ethics committee or ethics contact in the Department in which the research will be carried out. If in doubt, advice should be sought from the Head of Department. If further advice is required, researchers should contact the appropriate School-level Research Ethics Committee.
Any project that is identified at the outset (by the researcher, supervisor, Faculty or Department) as requiring ethical review should be referred to the appropriate local or School-level Research Ethics Committee.
>> WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION DECLARATION OF HELSINKI
>> Participant consent form template
The information sheets and consent forms should:
• be intelligible in language that is accessible to the target audience (e.g. children, young people, etc);
• describe the nature and duration of participation in the study;
• describe the research instrument(s)/methodology with indicative questions where appropriate;
• clearly state the purpose(s) or phases of processing and request explicit consent for each;
• explain how participant data in all its forms (e.g. paper forms, recordings, etc) will be protected, including how it will be stored and for how long and how it will be ultimately destroyed
• state the planned avenues for dissemination of results of the study;
• clearly inform possible participants that participation is voluntary, that the participant has the right to cease participation at any time without giving a reason and without prejudice;
• clearly state up to what point a participant can withdraw their data from a study, e.g. up until the data is irrevocably anonymised or until analysis or publication of the data findings.
Participants and location of data collection
Where known, application forms for ethical approval should name the locations at which data will be collected (i.e. name the school, or the youth centre, or the area). This information will be dealt with in strictest confidence.
The approximate number of participants, their ages, year group etc. should be described in the application form as well as the sampling method adopted in the study.
Research with vulnerable participants
Special consideration must be given to protecting the welfare of potentially vulnerable research participants. Vulnerable groups/persons are described as:
• individuals who face excessive risk through involvement in research, including those with limitations in their ability to provide informed consent to research because of factors such as immaturity or cognitive impairment.
• vulnerability can also stem from individuals’ relationships with others, and it is imperative that coercive situations are avoided. Such cases may occur when an employee/student/dependent is asked to participate in research being conducted by a supervisor/mentor.
Additional social factors, such as poverty and lack of access to health care, can also make individuals vulnerable to coercion, exploitation or other risks and need to be considered in reviewing applications.
Vulnerable participants include participants such as children, prisoners, terminally ill individuals, victims of trauma, cognitively impaired persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons.
Provide appropriate information
• Withholding information for participants is not acceptable, unless it is essential for research purposes.
• When withholding information is essential to the research purpose, additional information is provided to the participants as soon as possible. Care should be taken that additional information does not conflict with the information in the informed consent form.
Participants are to be informed before the research is undertaken about their right to withdraw from the research, even without giving a reason, at any time during the data gathering. It should be clear whether and how withdrawal affects incentives for participating in the study, such as gift cards or monetary payments. For example, state whether payments are only made to those completing an entire session. In surveys, one should make sure the respondents are aware that completing the survey is voluntary. If carried out online, this is done with an informed consent screen.
Privacy and data protection measures
• Participants must give approval for their data to be used for research purposes.
• The collected data are anonymous and confidential.
• As a rule-of-thumb, the research data are collected anonymously, except when it is essential for the purpose of the research to be collected otherwise or practically impossible.
• When personal or identifiable data are collected, they are stored separately from research data. Before running analyses, research data should be coded and made anonymous, and any links between personal and research data should be destroyed.
• All personal or identifiable data collected during research are confidential, unless it has been agreed otherwise beforehand. In case confidentiality cannot be guaranteed for any reason, participants are to be informed in advance and they give specific consent to release their information.
Regulations on reviewing research articles in the journal “Theory and Practice of Physical Culture”
The scientific articles submitted by the authors with the doctor’s degree, including members of the Editorial Board are reviewed on the orders of the Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Chief Editor).
1. Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts, scientific reviews and feedbacks (hereafter referred to as scientific articles) in the Editorial Office of the journal “Theory and Practice of Physical Culture” is carried out to maintain high scientific and theoretical level of the magazine and to select the most valuable and relevant (prospective) research papers.
2. A two-way double-blind (anonymous) review is used in the journal “Theory and Practice of Physical Culture”:
- the personal data of the author/authors is not revealed to the reviewer;
- the personal data of the reviewer is not revealed to the author/authors.
3. The scientific articles received from the authors should pass the primary checking on the completeness and correctness in accordance with the Regulations on writing articles.
4. The primary assessment of the scientific article is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Chief Editor.
Based on the article the Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Chief Editor) appoints the reviewer – member of the Editorial Board in charge of the corresponding direction (scientific discipline).
In case there is no member of the Editorial Board in charge of the corresponding direction (scientific discipline), the Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Chief Editor) appoints an external reviewer.
The reviewers (both members of the Editorial Board and external) must be recognized experts on the subject of the peer-reviewed article and have publications on the subject of the peer-reviewed article for the past 3 years.
5. The scientific articles submitted to the Editorial Office by the authors who do not have a degree or have a PhD degree require mandatory review.
6. After the evaluation of the article the reviewer can:
Recommend the article for publication;
Recommend the article for publication after the modification of the article in accordance with the comments and suggestions;
Not recommend the article for publication.
In cases the reviewer recommends the article for publication after the modification of the article in accordance with the comments and suggestions or doesn’t recommend the article for publication, the reasons for such decision should be specified in the review.
The Editorial Office recommends the use of a standard form for reviewing (rus).
7. When reviewing scientific articles reviewers are required:
To pay attention to the presence of the relevance of the featured scientific problem in the article;
To describe the theoretical and practical significance of the research;
To evaluate the correlation between the conclusions of the author with existing scientific concepts.
The reviewer’s assessment of the author’s personal contribution to the solution of the featured problem is an essential element of the review.
It’s appropriate to mention in the review the compliance of style, logic and simplicity with the scientific nature of the material, as well as make a conclusion about the reliability and validity of findings.
8. If the review contains a significant portion of criticism with an overall positive recommendation the material can be designated as a polemical one and may be accepted for publication in the journal as a scholarly dispute.
9. If there are valid reasons the scientific articles may be sent for additional review. The valid reasons for the re-review are:
Insufficient qualification in the issues being addressed in the scientific article declared by the expert (experts);
Insufficient level of the initial expert opinion;
Fierce dispute of positions mentioned in the scientific article.
10. The reviewer submits the review to the Editorial Office as a scanned copy by e-mail or on paper by mail.
11. The Editorial Office sends to the authors of the articles the copies of the reviews or a reasoned refusal.
To comply with the paragraph 2 of these Regulations, the Editorial Office “depersonalizes” the review and sends to the author the part concerning the essence of the review without disclosing the personal data of the reviewer.
When requested, the Editorial Office sends the copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
12. The reviews are kept in the Editorial Office for 5 years.
Conflict of Interest
Theory and Practice of Physical Culture Journal of Management requires all authors and reviewers to declare any conflicts of interest that may be inherent in their submissions. Conflict of interest for a given manuscript exists when a participant in the peer review and publication process – author, reviewer, or editor – has ties to activities that could inappropriately influence his or her judgment, whether or not judgment is in fact affected. Financial relationships with industry, for example, through employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony, either directly or through immediate family, are usually considered to be the most important conflicts of interest. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.
Editors — May request that authors of a study funded by an agency with a proprietary or financial interest in the outcome sign a statement, such as "I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis."
Authors — When they submit a manuscript, whether an article or a letter, authors are responsible for recognizing and disclosing financial and other conflicts of interest that might bias their work. They should acknowledge in the manuscript all financial support for the work and other financial or personal connections to the work.
Reviewers — External peer reviewers should disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should disqualify themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if they believe it appropriate. The editors must be made aware of reviewers’ conflicts of interest to interpret the reviews and judge for themselves whether the reviewer should be disqualified. Reviewers should not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.