Respecting the rules of ethics in publications, this publication is subject to the rules of the Committee on Ethics in Publication (COPE) and follows the executive regulations of the Law on Prevention and Combating Fraud in Scientific Works.
General responsibilities and duties of editors
Editors should:
Take responsibility for any material published in the magazine.
To work towards the needs of readers and writers.
Try to promote the magazine.
According to the existing trends, ensure the quality of printed materials.
Defend freedom of speech.
Maintain the integrity of the journal's academic background.
Prevent moral and intellectual standards from being influenced by financial needs.
Always provide corrections, explanations, withdrawal of articles, and apologies if needed with interest.
Authors' ethical considerations:
Authors should not have any fake information, either raw or processed, in their submitted work.
Scientific integrity must be observed by all authors. Any use of previous sources, whether published or not, must be mentioned by the authors in the work with reference to the source.
There should not be any manifestation of ethnic, cultural, national, sexual, identity, age, language and medical discrimination in the work, otherwise the work will be rejected in the first stage.
All authors must have received the consent of the participants in their research. Likewise, preserving the personal rights of the participants as well as the personalization of their identity should be carefully considered by the authors.
The principles of peer referees are required to comply with them:
Judges should:
Only judge the initial version of the articles that are within the scope of their professional ability and are also able to do them in a certain time.
Respect the confidentiality of the peer review information and do not disclose any of the original manuscript information at any stage of the review.
Do not use the information obtained during the arbitration to benefit yourself or any other person or organization, and also do not use this information to harm or discredit others.
Inform potential inconsistencies with the magazine's interests, or if there is no assurance regarding one of the inconsistencies, correspond with the magazine to make sure.
Do not allow their judgment to be influenced by issues such as nationality, religion, political beliefs, gender or other such issues related to the author.
Be neutral and constructive in reviews and avoid verbal violence, nasty and insulting terms.
Have a correct understanding of the two-way nature of the peer review process and do their share of the work within the specified time.
Impersonating another person during the arbitration process is considered misconduct and very serious.
Expectations during the peer review process:
Judges should:
Be accountable within the specified time, especially if they are unable to arbitrate.
If they do not have the necessary professional ability to judge, let them know.
They agree to arbitration only if they are able to do so under an agreed upon timetable.
Report any conflict of interest.
In case of inconsistency in refereeing, follow the policy of the journal.
Review drafts that have been previously reviewed for other journals completely from scratch, as there may be many changes between two different submissions.
Make sure that their suggestions for a substitute referee are based on their suitability and not personal matters.
Avoid accepting the initial version of the arbitration that they want to arbitrate only for the purpose of obtaining information about that case, and not the actual arbitration.
If they are not able to judge impartially, they should avoid accepting the job.
If they had a role in the research in any way, they should avoid judging it.
If they are conducting a research similar to the original version presented, or if they have submitted it to another journal, they should refrain from refereeing the work.
Expectations at the time of judging:
Judges should:
If they encounter inconsistencies during the judging that were not obvious when they accepted the work, they should immediately inform the magazine.
If they are not able to review all parts of the initial version, they should inform the journal immediately.
Refrain from including other persons, including students and scholars under their training, in refereeing without obtaining permission from the journal.
Keep the entire first draft submitted and its reviews confidential.
In the case of anonymous peer review, if they suspect the author's identity, and this causes a certain inconsistency, they should inform the journal.
If during the judging, they come across a specific irregularity or ethical point regarding different aspects of the work, they should immediately inform the journal.
Do not intentionally make the arbitration longer than the set time limit.
Ensure that their judgment is based on the characteristics of the work presented and not influenced by personal, financial or other incompatibilities.
Avoid contacting the authors of the work without obtaining permission from the journal.
Expectations when preparing a referee report:
Judges should:
Be constructive and unbiased and inform the authors of their constructive comments to improve the first version.
Avoid making offensive comments and baseless accusations.
Criticize in detail and use relevant evidence to prove your opinion about general opinions.
Be fully aware of the sensitivities caused by language-related issues, especially for writers who do not write in their native language.
Accurately specify the basic excess research required to prove the claims made in the initial version.
Do not write the report in a negative way