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 language is not allowed to be accepted which has been published previously or is going to be published in the future.
Authors should express their primary ideas and tasks explicitly even they have been revised and quoted objectively. If precise sentences or paragraphs are seen in a research paper which seems it is an extract from an essay or the citation from another author, this sentence should be put in quotation marks. The essay ought to specify the origin of each applied datum and also all data. If specific data collection is applied by another author or this author, it should inform the other published or unpublished tasks.
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 particular situation.
Based on (Read more):
The article registration will inform all authors by sending an email to the site of Management Faculty journals. It is evident that inserting the author`s name in the article is considered as his / her main role in writing the essay if the essay authors have no role to write the essay and their name has not been mentioned. It is necessary to inform the received information by email immediately. All the authors of the article are responsible for the origin of the work. All assessment rights for plagiarism in the journal are reserved.
Plagiarism has a variety of forms:
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:
Based on (Read more):
https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts?t=plagiarism&sort=score
https://publicationethics.org/intellectualproperty
Plagiarism in a submitted manuscript
Plagiarism in a published article
Reviewer suspected to have appropriated an author’s ideas or data
Responding to whistleblowers when concerns are raised directly
Responding to whistleblowers when concerns are raised via social media
Systematic manipulation of the publication process
The author should express the resources of financial scheme in the text of paper then applies to submit it. Each of the mentioned resources should be printed with article. If the type of situation which shows the contrast is doubtful, it should be clarified, any item in the field of conflict of benefits should inform the editor or the publishing office. The responsible author can recommend the probable reviewer for the paper at the time of submitting the essay to journal. Authors ought to avoid any probable contrasts or its action in selecting the editors and reviewers. This kind of conflict of benefits is not only applied for the responsible author but also includes all the authors ` colleagues in the paper.
The examples of possible Conflict of Benefits are as following:
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. papers submitted by reviewers and the Editorial Committee for review or revision and resubmission by the author if necessary.
Based on (Read more):
https://wame.org/conflict-of-interest-in-peer-reviewed-medical-journals
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/undisclosed-conflict-interest-published-article
Journal follows a Double-Blind peer review in which the authors do not know the reviewers and vice versa. The authors should respect the confidentiality of the assessment process and don’t reveal their identity to reviewers and vice versa. For instance, article should not include any information like self-revelation in a way that the reviewer can identify the author.
Authors should not publish their submitted papers on sites (either articles or first versions) because authors can be identified easily by reviewers in websites.
Authors should not mention the people as editor or reviewer where their previous article or previous copy has been studied and suggested his recommendations because this awareness or knowledge is in contrary with Double-Blind peer review process.
Based on (Read more):
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/what-consider-when-asked-peer-review-manuscript
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 with findings and their interpretations should be revealed and subjected.
The article should contain ample details and resources in a way that researchers access to the same data collection to repeat the research.
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 editor based on the precision and correction of the main article.
Based on (Read more):
All the mentioned authors should work seriously in 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 include 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 journal should send one sheet or one version of article to all shared coauthors to satisfy them by paper submission and publishing.
Based on (Read more):
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/how-recognise-potential-authorship-problems
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/how-spot-authorship-problems
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/ghost-guest-gift-authorship-submitted-manuscript
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/changes-authorship-removal-author-publication
Authors are in charge of preserving and supporting privacy, human munificence, human freedom and welfare as well as research participants. The papers which are involved in human affairs (field studies, simulations, interviews), should be done in accordance with human rights regulation necessities in the university author.
Based on (Read more):
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.
Based on (Read more):
https://wame.org/editorial-independence
Editors should avoid any action which increases conflicts of benefits with its unreasonable aspect. For instance:
To avoid potential conflict of benefits, 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 editor, submitted to the journal, should be submitted by editor to another qualified person like previous editor or one of the members of board of editorial. To apply written considerations in 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 competitive, partnership, financial or other relations with any other companies, organizations or institutes related to article. The examples related to the relations which show conflicts of benefits of the editor or author are:
Based on (Read more):
https://wame.org/conflict-of-interest-in-peer-reviewed-medical-journals
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/undisclosed-conflict-interest-published-article
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 the assessment process.
Editors are expected to make sure the confidentiality of the Double-Blind peer review process and lack of information revelation which may reveal the authors` identity to reviewers and vice versa. Reviewers` anonymity can be breached only when reviewers permit editors to reveal their identities.
Editors should make sure that their board of editorials is compatible and coordinated with them . Some parts of a submitted article that 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.
Based on (Read more):
https://wame.org/definition-of-a-peer-reviewed-journal
https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
The publication has a process of Double-Blind peer review. Reviewers should abstain from assessing the articles which they have previously provided written suggestions in the first version. If a reviewer is aware of the author`s identity or coauthor`s identity, is involved naturally in assessing the article. Reviewers are also responsible for avoiding writing, telling, and doing whatever reveals their identity for the author.
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 article and they are not allowed to transfer the essay information to someone else. If reviewers are suspected to wrong deed should inform editor confidentially, not expressing their worries to other departments till official announcement.
Based on (Read more):
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/systematic-manipulation-publication-process
https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
https://www.wame.org/syllabus-for-prospective-and-newly-appointed-editors#Reviewers
Abstaining or rejecting 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 that has been previously assessed, they should inform the editor of primary evaluation details unless they are asked to reassess.
Based on (Read more):
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/what-consider-when-asked-peer-review-manuscript
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. For instance, there is a situation where the reviewer is editing and evaluating a similar article in that journal or another along with a similar research paper, keep in mind that under the process of Double-Blind peer review, as reviewers do not know the authors, it is unlikely that reviewers are aware of the involved conflicts of benefits among authors. Thus, they are not limited through these conflicts. If reviewers become aware of such conflicts, they should inform the editor of the journal.
Based on (Read more):
https://wame.org/conflict-of-interest-in-peer-reviewed-medical-journals
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/undisclosed-conflict-interest-published-article
Chief Editors is accountable for everything published in the journal. This means the editors:
Best Practices for Editors would include
Based on (Read more):
Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.
A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions.
Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
Editors should provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor following the standards within the relevant field.
Best practice for editors would include:
Based on (Read more):
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/changes-authorship-removal-author-publication
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:
Based on (Read more):
https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/systematic-manipulation-publication-process
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/what-consider-when-asked-peer-review-manuscript
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:
Based on (Read more):
The relationship of editors to the University of Imam Hussein and the owner is based firmly on the principle of editorial independence.
Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from the University of Imam Hussein.
Editors have a written contract(s) setting out their relationship with University of Imam Hussein.
The terms of this contract is in line with the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.
Best practice for editors would include:
Based on (Read more):
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:
Based on (Read more):
https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
Editors should endeavour to ensure that the research they publish was carried out according to the relevant internationally Declaration of Helsinki for clinical research.
Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. However, editors should recognize that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.
Best practice for editors would include:
Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable.
Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate.
Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.
Based on (Read more):
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/suspected-ethical-problem-submitted-manuscript
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/image-manipulation-published-article
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/systematic-manipulation-publication-process
Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with the University of Tehran to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.
Best practice for editors would include:
Based on (Read more):
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/plagiarism-submitted-manuscript
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/plagiarism-published-article
https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/text-recycling-guidelines-editors
Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE.
Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart on complaints.
Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further.
Based on (Read more):
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/suspected-ethical-problem-submitted-manuscript
All submitted articles to this journal 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 Attribution Non-Commercial (CC BY NC). Copyright in any article published by this Open Access journal is under the CC BY NC license and retained by the author(s). The Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY NC) permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
|
Author retains copyright |
The license of the copyright to all users to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt the work, provided the author is attributed and the use is non-commercial, ie not ‘primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation |
In this journal, all participants in human subjects' articles have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, etc., should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the participants (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. informed consent for this purpose requires that identifiable participants be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should disclose to these patients whether any potential identifiable material might be available via the Internet as well as in print after publication. participants' consent should be written and archived either with the journal, the authors, or both, as dictated by local regulations or laws.
Based on (Read more): http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/protection-of-research-participants.html
All articles submitted will be checked using the iThenticate plagiarism detection software. A specific process is followed to manage a case of plagiarism. The journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s guidelines presented in the following flowcharts:
For other plagiarism issues and scientific misconduct, this journal applies the COPE Guidance on Plagiarism Cases.
We detect and consider the following types of plagiarism in the journal and prevent them to be used:
Full Plagiarism: Previously published content without any changes to the text, idea, and grammar is considered as full plagiarism. It involves presenting exact text from a source as one’s own.
Partial Plagiarism: If the content is a mixture from multiple different sources, where the author has extensively rephrased text, then it is known as partial plagiarism.
Self-Plagiarism: When an author reuses complete or portions of their pre-published research, then it is known as self-plagiarism. Complete self-plagiarism is a case when an author republishes their own previously published work in a new journal. (Read the COPE guidelines on text recycling)
(Based on COPE's guideline: Text recycling guidelines for editors)
Self-plagiarism, also referred to as ‘text recycling’, is a topical issue and is currently generating much discussion among editors. Opinions are divided as to how much text overlap with an author’s own previous publications is acceptable, and editors often find it hard to judge when action is required.
These guidelines are intended to guide editors in dealing with cases of text recycling. Text recycling, also known as self-plagiarism, is when sections of the same text appear in more than one of an author’s own publications.
Editors should consider each case of text recycling on an individual basis as the most appropriate course of action will depend on a number of factors.
Text recycling can take many forms, and editors should consider which parts of the text have been recycled.
When significant overlap is identified between two or more articles, editors should consider taking action. Several factors may need to be taken into account when deciding whether the overlap is considered significant.
Text recycling may be identified in a submitted article by editors or reviewers, or by the use of plagiarism detection software, e.g. CrossCheck. Editors should consider the extent of the overlap when deciding how to act.
If text recycling is discovered in a published article, it may be necessary to publish a correction to, or retraction of, the original article. This decision will depend on the degree and nature of the overlap, and several factors will need to be considered. As for text recycling in a submitted manuscript, editors should handle cases of overlap in data according to the COPE flowchart for dealing with suspected redundant publication in a published article [COPE flowchart for suspected redundant publication in a published article http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/01B_Redundant_Published.pdf].
Journal editors should consider publishing a correction article when:
The correction should amend the literature by adding the missing citation and clarifying what is new in the subsequent publication versus the original publication.
Journal editors should consider publishing a retraction article when:
The retraction should be issued in line with the COPE retraction guidelines [COPE guidelines for retracting articles https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction-guidelines.pdf].
Attitudes towards text recycling have changed over the past decade. Editors should consider this when deciding how to deal with individual cases of text recycling in published articles. Editors should judge each case in line with accepted practice at the time of publication.
In general, where overlap does not involve duplication of results, editors are advised to consider taking no corrective action for cases where the text recycling occurred earlier than 2004. Editors may wish to take corrective action in the case of duplication of data prior to this date and should follow the COPE flowchart for dealing with suspected redundant publication in a published article [COPE flowchart for suspected redundant publication in a published article http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/01B_Redundant_Published.pdf].
Non-research article types such as Opinion, Review and Commentary articles should in principle adhere to the same guidelines as research articles. Due to the critical and opinion-based nature of some non-research article types, action should be considered when text is recycled from an earlier publication without any further novel development of previously published opinions or ideas or when they are presented as a novel without any reference to previous publications.