Ethical Code

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Padel Scientific Journal adheres to the principles of transparency and best practices set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). This code regulates the ethical commitments expected from authors, reviewers, and the editorial team.

1. Research Involving Human Participants, Bioethics, and Informed Consent

All empirical, observational, or experimental studies involving human participants (athletes, coaches, youth players, etc.) must be conducted in strict accordance with the World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki.

  • Institutional Ethical Approval: Authors must explicitly state in the Methods section or in the manuscript’s ethics statement, the formal name of the accredited Institutional Review Board (IRB) / Research Ethics Committee that reviewed and approved the study protocol, along with the official registration/approval reference number (e.g., “The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of University [Name] (Ref. No. XXX/202X)”). Any exceptional, officially granted ethical exemption must be formally documented and justified.

  • Informed Consent: Authors must confirm that free and written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. For studies involving minors or vulnerable populations, written informed consent from parents or legal guardians, as well as participant assent, must be documented.

  • Privacy and Data Protection: Strict anonymity and confidentiality of participants must be maintained, ensuring no personally identifiable data or images are published without explicit written authorization.

2. Responsibilities and Duties of Authors

  • Originality and Plagiarism: Manuscripts must present entirely original and unpublished work. The journal utilizes similarity detection software (Turnitin). Plagiarism, self-plagiarism (redundant or duplicate publication), and text recycling are strictly prohibited and constitute grounds for immediate rejection.

  • Authorship Criteria and CRediT Taxonomy: Authorship must be limited to individuals who have made substantial contributions to: (a) conception and design, or data acquisition; (b) data analysis and interpretation; (c) drafting or critically revising the manuscript; and (d) final approval of the version to be published. The journal adopts the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) standard. "Guest/honorary" and "ghost" authorships are strictly prohibited.

  • Disclosure of Funding and Conflicts of Interest: Authors must explicitly declare any financial, commercial, or personal relationships that could influence the study outcomes, as well as all sources of financial support, including grant numbers and funding agencies.

  • Data Availability (Open Data): Authors are strongly encouraged to deposit raw research datasets in open-access scientific repositories or make them available upon reasonable request to ensure reproducibility.

  • Errors in Published Works: If an author identifies a significant error or inaccuracy in their published article, they are obliged to promptly notify the editorial office to issue an official erratum or corrigendum.

3. Responsibilities and Duties of Reviewers

  • Objective and Constructive Evaluation: Peer review must be conducted rigorously, neutrally, and constructively based on scientific and methodological merits, adhering strictly to the deadlines established by the journal.

  • Absolute Confidentiality: Submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, share, cite, or utilize any unpublished materials for personal or professional advantage.

  • Disclosure of Competing Interests: Reviewers must decline the invitation to review if they have any direct academic rivalry, recent collaboration, financial connection, or personal relationship with any of the authors.

  • Ethical Technology Use: Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading manuscripts, abstracts, or raw files into third-party generative AI tools during the review process.

4. Responsibilities and Duties of the Editorial Team

  • Impartial Editorial Decisions: Decisions to accept or reject a manuscript rely exclusively on scientific validity, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance to the journal's scope, without regard to the authors' race, gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, or religious beliefs.

  • Editorial independence: The Universidad de Extremadura funds the journal but does not interfere in editorial decisions, which are made exclusively on scientific grounds.

  • Anonymity and Fair Review Process: The editorial team guarantees the integrity of the evaluation process through a double-blind peer review system.

  • Confidentiality: The editorial team will treat manuscripts, review reports, and reviewers’ identities as confidential, and will not use or share them outside the editorial process.

  • Editorial Conflicts of Interest: When the author, or one of the authors, is the Editor-in-Chief or a member of the editorial team, that person will not take part in handling the manuscript, selecting reviewers, or making the decision, and will not have access to its record. The process and final decision will be handled by an associate editor or a guest editor not involved in the work.

5. Policy on Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Large Language Models (LLMs)

  • For Authors: Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini) cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. Any use of AI technologies for writing assistance, translation, data analysis, or coding must be explicitly declared in the manuscript (“Generative AI Declaration”). Authors retain full legal and intellectual responsibility for the accuracy and originality of all content.

  • For Reviewers and Editors: Uploading submitted manuscripts or review drafts into external generative AI platforms is strictly forbidden to protect authors' confidentiality, privacy, and intellectual property rights.

6. Protocol for complaints, appeals, corrections, and retractions

In cases of suspected scientific misconduct (plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, authorship disputes, or ethical violations), the editorial team will handle investigations in strict compliance with COPE flowcharts and guidelines:

  • Corrections (Erratum / Corrigendum): Published when minor, unintentional errors are identified that do not undermine the scientific validity of the findings.

  • Expression of Concern: Issued if a well-founded investigation into potential misconduct is ongoing and conclusive findings are pending.

  • Retraction: Articles will be formally retracted if serious misconduct, data falsification, severe plagiarism, or major bioethical breaches are substantiated. The official retraction notice will clearly state the reasons and the party issuing the retraction, and a permanent watermark will be applied to the published PDF.

  • Appeals and complaints: Authors may appeal an editorial decision or submit a complaint about the process by writing to padelscij@unex.es, with a reasoned justification. The appeal will be reviewed by an editor not involved in the original decision, and a response will be given within 30 days.