Code of Ethics for Research and Scientific Publications         

 

To achieve such goal, the surveying process and research papers publishing should be done accurately fairly. To make all beneficiaries rely on serving justice in the checking and publishing process of journals results in reliability and popularity of the journals and publications. Thus, the code of Ethics of publications has been designed to obtain the purpose of confidence in checking and publishing process of journals.

 

1. The Code of Ethics for the Authors

 

Originality

As an author begins submitting an article, the article should be a novel and original task. The author is not allowed to submit an article whose part is being studied somewhere else. He/ she cannot submit the article whose part is being studied and assessed to another journal as well. The submitted journal either part of it or the whole in Persian or any other languages is not allowed to be accepted which has been published previously or is going to be published in the future.

Authors should not submit the article which has been previously submitted to this journal, assessed and finally disapproved by the editor. If the first version was disapproved and the author is willing to submit a modified version for assessment, the essay resubmission justification should be clearly explained for the author or the editor. The permission for essay resubmission for the second time is possible in a particular situation.

 

Plagiarism

All the authors of the article are responsible for the origin of the work. All assessment rights for the plagiarism in the journal are reserved.

Plagiarism has a variety of forms:

1. To insert the authors and researchers ` names who have no role in the article
2. To copy or repeat the most significant part of another article (even the copied article is related to the author of a new essay )
3. To show the outcome and results of the  others ` researches to his own
4. To express false results, in contrast with scientific findings or distort the outcomes of the research
5. Continuous publishing by a single author in some journals.
6. To apply unreliable data or manipulate research data

Plagiarism items will be studied by the journal editors for preserving the validity and the efforts of researchers without any overlook or indulgence based on the level of plagiarism then legally pursued as follows:

1. Journal will be disapproved and in case of publishing, it will be disappeared on the site
2. The name of the authors will be inserted in the blacklist
3. It will be prosecuted by qualified legal and judicial references
4. By writing an official letter, the plagiarism file is shared with other related domestic and foreign journals
5. By writing an official letter to the Ministry of Science and Information Technology, ISC, universities, institutes, journals or wherever the author has used the printing rate of this paper, they are informed of the procedure

 

Conflict of Interest

The author should express the resources of the financial scheme in the text of paper then applies to submit it. 

The examples of possible Conflict of Benefits are as following:

1. One of the authors in the very institution or the organization who is a reviewer or mentioned editor
2. One of the authors, member of the thesis committee who has been a reviewer or editor and vice versa
3. One of the authors, editors or reviewers who are the coauthor in another article or, had been the coauthor of an article in the past two years.

Authors should not introduce or name the people whom they know that they have studied the previous article and have put forward their hypothesis because this movement is in contrary with the hidden assessment process of the article automatically.

Manuscripts submitted by authors from our institution or from our reviewers' board should be reviewed by referees from outside.

 

Precision

Authors are finally responsible for the whole content of the submitted paper to the journal. Authors are in charge of representing a precise perspective of the done research as well as an objective debate, especially for the research importance.

Authors should report their findings thoroughly, not to eliminate data relevant to the text or structure of research questions. Regardless of supporting the expected outcomes or being in contrast, results should be reported. Authors should present the features or relevant characteristics of their research, their findings and interpretation precisely. Fundamental suggestions, theories, methods, indexed and research schemes relevant to findings and their interpretations should be revealed and subjected.

If an author discovers a mistake or an important carelessness, he/she is responsible for informing the editor and the procedure immediately to cooperate with the article modification or revision. If the author or publication, by a third person or party,  understands that the published paper is suffering from a monumental error, the author is responsible for applying the article modification or revision as well as providing the evidence for the editor based on the precision and correction of the main article.

 

Authorship

All the mentioned authors should work seriously in a research paper to be responsible for the results. The authorship or compilation should be shared in proportion with different supporting.

Authors should accept the responsibility and validity of the task which includes the authorship validity or compilation, only for the task which they have done practically or they have helped. Authors should typically list the name of the student as the main coauthor in the paper with multiple authors which has adapted from the student`s thesis or dissertation.

The responsible author who submits the paper to the journal should send one sheet or one version of the article to all shared coauthors to satisfy them by paper submission and publishing.

 

Being up to date             

Authors should act quickly and appropriately to revise and modify the articles. If an author cannot act before the deadline (maximum one month), should contact the editor for extension or refusal from the assessment process at once.

 

2. Code of Ethics for Editors

 

Independence

Editors should preserve their pen and paper independence to work and make sure if authors are free to write. The editors are responsible for accepting or refusing the articles which typically depend on the idea and recommendations of reviewers, by the way, the articles which are inappropriate in the point of view of editors are probably refused without reviewers` assessment.

 

No biases

Editors should improve their position score and circumstances confidentially, constructively unbiased. Editors carry the essay review duty only based on scientific merits. Editors should act unbiased, without personal or ideological advocacy.

 

Conflict of Benefits

Editors should avoid any action which increases conflicts of benefits with its unreasonable aspect. For instance:

To avoid a potential conflict of benefits, the editor is not allowed to publish the article which is not clearly identified, reviewed or partly reviewed. Liability, writing authority and editing each article by the editor, submitted to the journal, should be submitted by the editor to another qualified person like a previous editor or one of the members of the editorial board. To apply written considerations in the article by the author or editor in any form is not acceptable.

Editors should avoid any paper study which is in contrast with their real or potential conflict of benefits. The contrast which is due to the competitive, partnership, financial or other relations with any other companies, organizations or institutes related to the article.

The examples related to the relations which show conflicts of benefits of the editor or author are:

1. Both the author and editor have been employed by one institute
2. The editor has been one member of the thesis committee of the author or vice versa
3. The editor and the author are currently coworkers and coauthors in another article or have been coauthors in an article in the past two years.

 

Confidentiality

Editors and their board of editorials are not allowed to reveal relevant information of the article to anyone but reviewers and authors. Official and formal procedures should be determined to preserve the confidentiality of assessment process.

Editors should make sure that their editorial board are compatible and coordinated with them. Some parts of a submitted article which has not been published are not allowed to be used in personal research of an editor without the author `s written permission. Confidential ideas or information which has been got by article assessment should be preserved privately not to be used toward private benefits.

 

Assessment quality

Typically, two reviewers are invited to express their idea about an article. The editor should evaluate all assessments qualitatively. The editor may rarely edit an assessed article before submitting to the author (for example, for eliminating an expression which reveals the reviewer`s identity or does not send the assessed article in case it is not constructive or appropriate. Rankings and scores of assessment quality as well as other functional features assessed periodically by the editor to make sure of the optimized operation of journal.

 

Quality of decision

Editors are responsible for describing the decisions of the board of editorials for authors and their articles. Editors should write high-quality letters where these letters represent the combination of the reviewers` recommendations and extra suggestions for another author. Editors should not attach the result of the decision in the letter format without explanation to the advice and suggestions of the reviewer.

 

Precision

As the editor receives convincing evidence from a reviewer based on false concept or results of an unpublished article, should inform the procedure to the author. If similar evidence about an article were published, the editor should apply an emergency modified publishing, return previous one, and express relevant matters with other notes appropriately.

 

Authority

The editor is responsible for the final authority and responsibility of the journal. They should respect journal formation (such as readers, authors, reviewers, editors, the staff of the board of editorial) and try his / her best for the truthful and honest content of the journal as well as continuous improvement. The editor should select members of the board of editorial based on written assessment board, determine their responsibilities and evaluate their actions regularly.

 

Operation

The editor should design the operation index of the journal. Journal is going to be published based on annual auditing related to admission level, publishing intervals, submitted articles percentage for revision and foreign revision as well as the operation data.

Operation indexes ought to improve the journal operation for assessing the revolution of articles along with publishing processes.

 

3. Code of Ethics for Reviewers

 

Reciprocal communication

Evaluation and studying are professional activities for journals which have valued the whole profession to be encouraged. It is usually expected that the researchers who submit their articles in a journal accept the journal invitation for their article assessment.

 

Right to refuse and rejection

Abstaining or rejection of an article assessment based on time or status is essential. For example, a reviewer who is not qualified enough to review a research paper should abstain from assessing the article. By potential conflicts of benefits, reviewers should abstain from their assessment. If the reviewers are asked to assess an article which has been previously assessed, they should inform the editor of primary evaluation details unless they are asked to reassess.

 

Conflict of Interest

Generally, reviewers should abstain from assessing the articles which they think they are involved in conflicts of benefits such as shared financial, organizational and personal benefits or any connections with other companies, institutes or related individuals with essay, the reviewers who may have conflicts of benefits in the field of a special article. This conflict should be clarified for the editor to determine the appropriate level of assessment.

 

No biases

Reviewers should assess articles objectively, fairly and professionally. They are recommended to avoid any personal bias in their reviews.

 

Confidentiality

Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the assessment process. It is important to recognize whether this article is confidential or not. Reviewers should not discuss anyone except editor about the article and they are not allowed to transfer the essay information to someone else. If reviewers are suspected to the wrong deed should inform editor confidentially, not expressing their worries to other departments till official announcement.

 

Precision

To assess the article and say recommendations to the author (authors), reviewers should always know that the assessment influences the peer review. Reviewers should be honest with authors about their relevant article worries.

Reviewers ought to define and support their scientific review sufficiently and, it means they should provide details and ample information for the editor to justify their advice to the author. Reviewers cannot be bipolar, for instance, on the one hand, very friendly and intimate assessments facing with author and on the other hand, very bitter assessment in person discussion with editor.

 

Punctuality

Reviewers should act quickly in their assessing and reviewing. If a reviewer cannot review his task in a determined deadline (maximum one month) he/she ought to connect with the editor for extending the reviewing time or new reviewer selection.

 

4. COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices

 

Editors

Chief Editors is accountable for everything published in the journal. This means the editors

• strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
• strive to constantly improve their journal;
• have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish;
• champion freedom of expression;
• Maintain the integrity of the academic record.
• preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
• Always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.

 

Best Practice for Editors would include

• actively seeking the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes
• encouraging and being aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing their journal’s processes in the light of new findings
• supporting initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct
• supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics
• assessing the effects of their journal policies on author and reviewer behavior and revising policies, as required, to encourage responsible behavior and discourage misconduct
• Ensuring that any press releases issued by their journal reflect the message of the reported article and put it into context.

 

Readers

Readers should be informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.

 

    Best practice for editors would include:

• Ensuring that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers including statistical review.
• adopting processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting including technical editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists
• considering developing a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of non-research articles
• adopting authorship or contributors hip systems that promote good practice (i.e. so that listings accurately reflect who did the work) and discourage misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest  authors)

Informing readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation.

 

Best practice for editors would include:

• Reviewing author instructions regularly and providing links to relevant guidelines
• Publishing relevant competing interests for all contributors and publishing corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication
• ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests)
• respecting requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are well-reasoned and practicable
• publishing details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct
• publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles

 

Relations with reviewers

•  Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
•  Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.

Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.

 

Best practice for editors would include:

• encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects (including animals), inappropriate data manipulation and presentation)
• encouraging reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism
• considering providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications (e.g. links to cited references and bibliographic searches)
• sending reviewers’ comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libelous remarks
• seeking to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal
• monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this is of a high standard
• developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating this on the basis of reviewer performance
• ceasing to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews
• ensuring that the reviewer database reflects the community for their journal and adding new reviewers as needed
• using a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (e.g. author suggestions, bibliographic databases)
• following the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct

 

Relations with editorial board members

Editors should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.

 

Best practice for editors would include:

• having policies in place for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased review
• identifying suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and  good management of the journal
• regularly reviewing the composition of the editorial board providing clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties, which might include:
• acting as ambassadors for the journal
• supporting and promoting the journal
• seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions
• reviewing submissions to the journal
• accepting commissions to write editorials, reviews, and commentaries on papers in their specialist area
• attending and contributing to editorial board meetings
• consulting editorial board members  periodically (e.g. once a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying the future challenge

 

Editorial and peer review processes

• Editors should strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely
• Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.

 

Best practice for editors would include:

• ensuring that people involved with the editorial process (including themselves) receive adequate training and keep abreast of the latest guidelines, recommendations and evidence about peer review and journal management
• keeping informed about research into peer review and technological advances
• adopting peer review methods best suited  for their journal and the research community it serves
• reviewing peer review practices periodically to see if the improvement is possible
• referring troubling cases to COPE, especially when questions arise that are not addressed by the COPE  flowcharts, or new types of publication misconduct are suspected
• considering the appointment of an ombudsperson to adjudicate in complaints that cannot be resolved internally

 

Quality assurance

Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.

 

Best practice for editors would include:

• having systems in place to detect falsified data (e.g. inappropriately manipulated photographic images or plagiarized text) either for routine use or when suspicions are raised
• basing decisions about journal house style on relevant evidence of factors that raise the quality of reporting.

 

Protecting individual data

Editors must obey laws on confidentiality in their own jurisdiction. Regardless of local statutes, however, they should always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions.

 

Complaints and appeals

Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart.
Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further.

 

Copyright and License

All submitted articles to this journal are published under a Creative Commons License.

All authors will be presented with the option to make articles available under the terms of the Creative Commons (CC BY).

This license allows rousers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use.