This magazine follows COPE rules.
Code of ethics for writers
Originality
The article that is sent to the Development and Transformation Management Quarterly must be new and must not have been simultaneously sent to other domestic or foreign publications in Farsi or English, or the whole or part of it has been published before.
The originality and origin of the article must be verified for the editorial staff. Therefore, articles extracted from master's theses and doctoral theses must send a picture of the minutes of the defense meeting or a letter from the university of study confirming the approval of the research proposal related to the article along with the article in the additional files section. Regarding articles derived from research projects, the contract concluded with the relevant organization or the letter of agreement to conduct research in the organization should be sent.
For the articles that are derived from the independent research of the researcher, either the letter of approval of the relevant organization regarding the research in that organization or the certificate of two of the experts who were present in that research, confirming the correctness of the research, should be sent. Otherwise, the author must fully describe the implementation process and the reasons for conducting the research in a report so that a decision can be made in this regard in the editorial board meeting.
The article must specify the origin and authenticity of each of the data sets used. If the proprietary data set has been used elsewhere by this author or another author, the article should cite these other works, whether published or unpublished.
Authors should not submit an article that has already been submitted to this journal, has been evaluated, and has been rejected by the editor after evaluation. If the original version was previously rejected and the author wishes to submit a revised version of the article for evaluation, the justification for resubmitting the article should be clearly stated by the author to the editor of the journal. It is only under certain conditions that it is allowed to resubmit the article a second time.
Scientific Theft
All authors of the article will be informed about the registration of the article in the Development and Transformation Management quarterly system by sending an email; It is obvious that the inclusion of the authors' names in the article is their essential role in editing the article, if the authors of the article had no role in editing the article and their names have been misused, it is necessary to inform them immediately through the received email. All authors are responsible for the originality of the work. The right to evaluate plagiarism cases is reserved for the journal. Academic plagiarism has various forms, including:
- Register another article under your name.
- Include the names of authors and researchers who did not contribute to the article.
- Copying or repeating significant parts of another article (even if the copied article belongs to one of the authors of the new article).
- Designing the results of other people's research in your own name.
- Repeated publication of articles by a single author in several publications.
And. Expressing false results and contrary to scientific findings or distorting the results of research.
- Using invalid data or manipulating research data.
Cases of academic plagiarism are investigated by the authorities of the journal and to protect the credibility and efforts of other researchers, without any tolerance or condonation, according to the amount of academic plagiarism, legal action is taken as follows:
- The article will be rejected and if printed, it will be removed from the sites.
- The names of all the authors of the article will be included in the blacklist of Islamic Azad University publications.
- Legal action will be taken from the competent judicial authorities.
- Through an official letter, the plagiarism file will be shared with other universities and related domestic and foreign publications.
- In an official letter to the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, Islamic World Science Reference Base (ISC), universities, institutes, publications and any place where the authors have used the privilege of publishing this article. will be notified.
Conflict of interest
The responsible author must state the sources of financial support of the project in the text of the article, then submit the article. Each of the stated interests should be published along with the article. If there is any doubt about the type of situation that represents a conflict, it should be clarified and disclosed. Any case of conflict of interest should be raised with the journal secretariat or the editor.
When submitting an article to the journal, the corresponding author has the opportunity to suggest a possible reviewer for the article. Authors should avoid any possible conflict of interest or its manifestation in the selection of editors and referees. This type of conflict of interest does not apply only to the responsible author, but also to the co-authors of the article.
Examples of possible conflicts of interest include:
1) one of the authors is in the same institution or organization as the named editor or reviewer;
2) One of the authors was a member of the editor's thesis committee or a referee or vice versa.
3) One of the authors and the editor or reviewer are currently co-authors of another article or have been co-authors of an article in the past two years.
Authors should not introduce people and brand names who they know have read the previous version of the article and made their suggestions; Because such knowledge automatically violates the secret evaluation process of the article.
Two-way secret evaluation
The journal follows a confidential two-way review process whereby the authors do not know the reviewers and vice versa. Authors must respect the confidentiality of the evaluation process and not reveal their identity to the reviewers and vice versa. For example, the article should not contain any information subject to self-disclosure, so that the reviewer can identify the author.
Authors should not publish their submitted articles (including articles and preliminary drafts) on websites; Because on websites, authors can be easily identified by referees.
Authors should not name people as editors or reviewers who they know have already read the article or its previous version and made their suggestions; Because this knowledge or awareness automatically violates the two-way secret evaluation process.
precision
Authors are ultimately responsible for the content of the entire article submitted to the journal. The authors are committed to provide a detailed view of the research conducted and an objective discussion regarding the importance of the research.
Authors should report their findings in full and should not omit data that is relevant to the context or structure of the research questions. Results should be reported regardless of whether they support or contradict expected outcomes. Authors should be especially careful in presenting properties or characteristics related to their research or their findings and interpretation. The fundamental assumptions, theories, methods, indicators and research plans related to the findings and interpretations of their work should be revealed and mentioned.
The article should contain enough details and sources, so that it is possible for other researchers to access the same data set to repeat the research.
If an author discovers an important mistake or carelessness in his work, he is obliged to quickly inform the editor of the journal and cooperate to revise or correct the article. If the author or publisher finds out from a third person or entity that the published work has an important and serious mistake; The author is committed to promptly review or correct the article or provide evidence to the editor, indicating the correctness of the original or primary article.
Co-authored
All the authors mentioned in the article must have serious assistance and cooperation in the research work and be accountable for the results. Authorship credit and authorship should be shared in proportion to the contributions of different departments. Authors must take responsibility and credit for the work, including authorship or authorship, only for the work they actually did or helped to do.
Authors should normally list the student's name as co-principal author on articles that have multiple authors and are largely derived from the student's thesis or dissertation.
The responsible author who submits the article to the journal must send a copy or draft of the article to all co-authors and get their consent to submit the article to the journal and publish it.
human rights
The authors are responsible for maintaining and protecting the privacy, human dignity, well-being and freedom of human issues of the research participants. Articles that are involved in human issues (field studies, simulations, interviews) must be done in accordance with the requirements of the human rights regulations in the author's university.
Timeliness and speed of action
Authors should act quickly and properly in revising and correcting the article. If an author cannot act within the set deadline (up to one month), he/she should contact the editor as soon as possible to determine more time or withdraw from the evaluation process.
Code of ethics for editors
Esteghlal
Journal editors must maintain their independence of writing and work to ensure that authors have the freedom to write. The editors are responsible for accepting or rejecting articles. During the normal process, this work requires the opinions and recommendations of judges; However, articles that the editors consider to be completely inappropriate may be rejected without review by the referees.
No bias
Editors should increase their status and position in a confidential, unbiased, constructive manner. The editors are responsible for judging the articles solely on their scientific merits. Editors should act without favoritism or personal or ideological grudges.
Conflict of interest
Editors must avoid any actions that increase the conflict of interest or create an unreasonable appearance of it. for example:
- To avoid potential conflicts of interest, the editor should not publish material that has not been clearly identified, has not been refereed, or has been subject to one-sided secret refereeing. The responsibility and authority to write and edit any article written by the editor and sent to the journal office must be delegated through the editor to another competent person, such as the previous editor of the journal or a member of the editorial board and advisors. Applying written or written considerations in the article by the author-editor in any way and in any case is never acceptable.
- Editors should refrain from reviewing an article that presents them with an actual or potential conflict of interest, a conflict that results from competitive, collaborative, financial, or other relationships and connections with any author, company, or entity associated with the article. Examples of links that indicate editor-author conflicts of interest include:
- The editor and the writer are both employed by the same institution.
- The editor is a member of the author's thesis committee or vice versa.
- The author and editor are currently co-authors of another article or have been co-authors of an article in the past two years.
Two-way secret evaluation
The journal follows a secret two-way evaluation process whereby the authors do not know the reviewers and vice versa. Where it seems that the journal articles have not been subject to two-way secret evaluation, the evaluation standard should be clearly stated.
Being confidential
The editors (editors) and their editorial board should not disclose information about the article to anyone other than reviewers and authors. Administrative and formal procedures should be established to maintain the confidentiality of the evaluation process. Editors are expected to ensure the confidentiality of the two-way confidential review process and not disclose information that may reveal the identity of the authors to the reviewers or vice versa. The anonymity of referees can only be breached if the editors obtain permission from the referees to reveal their identities.
Quality assessment
Normally, two referees are invited to give an opinion about an article. The editor should check and evaluate all evaluations in terms of quality on a daily basis. In rare circumstances, an editor may edit a peer-reviewed article before sending it to an author (for example, to remove a statement that reveals the identity of a reviewer) or the peer-reviewed article, if it is not constructive or appropriate, for the author. do not send Ratings and evaluation quality scores and other performance characteristics should be periodically evaluated by the editor to ensure optimal performance of the journal. This and the scores should also help the ranks decide on jury reappointments and continuing appeals. The individual performance data of the referees must be in the editors and kept confidential.
To be on time
In order to ensure the timely evaluation of all articles and quick response to the authors' requests regarding the evaluation status, the editors must proceed with the initial evaluation and the selection of referees within the set deadline (at most one week after receiving the article).
Decision quality
Editors are responsible for explaining editorial board decisions to authors regarding their articles. Editors should write high-quality letters that incorporate the referee's recommendations and other additional suggestions for the author. The editors should not include the result of the decision in the form of a letter, without providing an explanation, attaching a set of recommendations and suggestions of the referee.
pay attention
When the editor has convincing evidence from a reviewer that the concept or result of an unpublished article is incorrect, he should promptly notify the author. If presented in a similar article, the editor should issue an amendment, earlier date, statement of matters or other related notes in appropriate form.
Authority
The final authority and responsibility of the journal should be with the editor. The editor must respect the organization of the magazine (readers, writers, reviewers, editors, editorial board staff and publisher) and strive to ensure the integrity and honesty of the magazine's content and continuous improvement of its quality. The editor must choose the members of the editorial team, including the editorial evaluation board; Determine the rights and responsibilities of these people and regularly evaluate their performance.
Function
The editor should plan the performance indicators of the journal. The journal should publish annual audits of acceptance rates, publication intervals, percentage of articles submitted for external review and evaluation, and other performance data. Performance indicators should be used to evaluate developments in the review and evaluation of articles and publishing processes and thus improve the performance of the journal.
Code of ethics for referees
mutual connection
Evaluation and review is a professional activity for journals that provides value to the entire profession and should be encouraged. It is usually expected that researchers who submit their articles to the journal will reciprocally accept the journal's invitation to evaluate the articles.
Right of refusal and non-acceptance
Refusing and rejecting the request to evaluate an article is necessary and necessary according to the time or situation. For example, a reviewer who feels insufficiently qualified to judge a research paper should refuse to evaluate the paper. Reviewers should refrain from evaluating the article if there is a potential conflict of interest. If the referees are asked to evaluate a paper that has already been reviewed and evaluated, they should inform the editor of the details of the initial evaluation, unless it is clear that they intend to request a re-evaluation.
Two-way secret evaluation
The publication has a secret two-way evaluation process. Reviewers should refuse to evaluate articles that have already provided the author with their written proposal in its early version. If the referee knows the identity of the author or co-author, it will naturally be subject to refusal to evaluate the article. Reviewers are also responsible for avoiding writing, saying or doing anything that could reveal their identity to the author.
Conflict of interest
Normally, referees should refuse to evaluate articles that, in their view, are subject to conflict of interest, including joint, financial, organizational, and personal interests, or any other connections or links with companies, institutions, or people related to the articles. Reviewers who may have a conflict of interest in the context of a particular article should disclose that conflict to the editor so that the editor can determine the appropriate level of their involvement. An example in this context is a situation where the reviewer has a similar article under review in the same or another journal or a similar research project in progress. Note that under the two-way secret review process, since the reviewers do not know the authors, it is unlikely that the reviewers will be aware of the conflicts of interest involved by the authors; Therefore, they are not limited by these contradictions. If the referees become aware of such conflicts, they should inform the editor of the journal.
No bias
Judges must evaluate the articles objectively, impartially or fairly and professionally. Judges should avoid personal biases in their recommendations and judgments.
Being confidential
Judges must respect the confidentiality of the evaluation process. It is important to recognize that the article is confidential. Reviewers should not discuss the article with anyone other than the editor of the journal, and should not share the article's information with anyone without permission. If referees suspect wrongdoing, they should inform the editor confidentially and should not share their concerns with other departments until the official announcement of the journal.
Precision
In evaluating the article and making recommendations for the author or authors, the reviewers should always remember that evaluation is influential in scientific judgment. Reviewers should be honest with the author about their concerns about the paper. Judges must adequately explain and support their scientific judgment; That is, they should provide the editor with enough details and information to justify their recommendations to the author. Judges should not be bipolar, for example, on the one hand, they have many friendly and sincere evaluations in the face of the author, and on the other hand, they have very negative evaluations in a private meeting with the editor.
To be on time
Judges must act quickly in their evaluations and judgments. If the referee cannot act within the set deadline (maximum one month), he should contact the editor as soon as possible to determine a longer period of time or choose a new referee.