“Code of Conduct in Scientific-Research Journal of Tarikh wa Tamaddun Islami (Islamic History and Civilisation)”
Scientific-Research Journal of Islamic History and Civilisation aims to publish the highly qualified researches in the field of Islam and of the Islamic world .Particular attention is paid to the works, all dealing with history and Civilization of Islamic Nations, including History of Islamic Art ;Historical Geography; Islamic Historiography; Cultural, Social and economic History; History of Science ; Islam and west ;oriental studies ,and etc. . To this end, the procedure of paper processing and publication contributes to the reputation of journals. Hence code of ethics in the journals is intended to win the trust in paper processing and publication. This code encompasses the journal s’ policies to grantee the ethical conduct of all who are involved in these processes.
Guide for Authors
Papers submitted for publication should describe high quality original work, not previously partially or fully published elsewhere neither in Farsi nor in any other languages. Furthermore, they must not be published or under consideration for publication elsewhere.
The authors should explicitly set forth their basic views and visions; if they are rephrased or reported views of other researchers, they must be put between “quotation marks”.
The submitted paper should refer to the novelty and originality of the given data. The authors are not allowed to submit the papers which have been already submitted, processed and rejected by the Editor in Chief in this journal. Even if the author is determined to resubmit the revised version of his/her already rejected paper, his/her explanations should be explicitly communicated to the Editor in Chief. Note that only in some exceptional cases the papers will be allowed to be resubmitted.
Plagiarism
All of the authors will be notified about their manuscript submission to the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology through a confirmation e-mail. Obviously, inclusion of the name and affiliation of authors in a paper denotes their key role in preparation of the submitted manuscript. In the event that the mentioned authors have not been involved in preparation of the paper and their name is abused, they should immediately inform the journal office about the raised issue through e-mail. All the authors shall be responsible for the originality of their work, and the journal shall have the inclusive right of plagiarism checking.
Plagiarism may occur in the forms of:
1. Submitting others’ paper under your own name;
2. Copying or repeating some parts of other papers (including the newly published ones);
3. Presenting the results of other researches under your own name;
4. Repetitive submission of the same paper with the same author(s) in several journals;
5. Presenting faulty results contradicting the scientific findings or distorting the results of research;
6. Application of invalid data or manipulation of the research data
Double Blinded Reviewing
A “double blinded reviewing” process is followed in the journal, in which the reviewers remain to be unknown to the authors and, in return, the authors would not reveal their identity to the reviewers to contribute to the blinded procedure reviewing. For this purpose, the submitted manuscripts must not contain any information which may help the reviewer to recognize the author(s). The authors are not expected to disseminate their submitted manuscript (including the paper and primary drafts) via the websites, since they must not openly mention the name of reviewers who have already reviewed a paper and commented on it. Disclosure of such information definitely contradicts the double blinded reviewing process.
Note
Authors are rendered to be liable for the submitted manuscript content and should be committed to present a clear profile about the conducted study and an objective discussion on its significance.
Authors must report their findings in detail, and avoid elimination of the data relevant to the content or structure of the research questions. Results should be reported regardless of being whether in agreement or disagreement with the expected outcome. Authors should be particularly careful about presenting the properties or characteristics associated with their research or their findings and interpretations. Fundamental assumptions, theories, methods, indices and overall design of the study, which are related to their findings and work commentaries, should be pointed out perspicuously.
The paper should cover details and contain sufficient references so as to enable other researchers to access the same data to repeat the experiment.
In case of detecting an error or shortcoming in his/her work, the author should be committed to inform the Editor in Chief promptly and fully participate in revising the paper. Furthermore, if publisher or the third party finds a significant error in a published paper, the author should be committed to either revise the paper or provide the Editor in Chief with concrete evidences on accuracy of the original or initial paper instantly.
Co-authorship
All authors must have be equally contributed to the study and be responsible for the probable consequences. Authorship creditability and bonus should be distributed in proportion to the contributions made by of all parties. Authors should take the responsibility of their conducted study, which includes the authorship creditability in lieu of their task done empirically or the task they have assisted in.
Normally, the authors must include the name of the student, as main co-author, in the papers which contain several authors and has been extracted, to some extent, from the student’s thesis.
Corresponding author, who submits the manuscript to the journal, should hand a hard copy or a draft of the paper to the co-authors and shall have their consent to send the paper to the journal for publication.
Authors should properly and promptly feedback the required revisions. If it happens that author fails to make revisions within the due time, he/she should inform the Editor in Chief to ask for either time extension or rescinding the reviewing process.
“Guidelines for Reviewers in Scientific-Research Journal of Islamic History and Civilisation”
Reciprocity
Reviewing and assessment are professional activities in journals, which determine the value of the whole career. Normally, the scholars who submit their manuscripts to the journal are expected to do their parts when invited to review a paper.
Declining to review a paper due to shortage of time and improper condition might be necessary. For instance, the reviewer who believes to be unqualified to judge about an original research paper should decline the reviewing job. In case of detecting a potential “conflict of interest”, the reviewers shall decline the reviewing. The reviewers who are requested to review an already reviewed paper should inform the Editor in Chief about the initial reviewing results, unless they are ensured that they have been designated to re-evaluate the given paper.
Double Blinded Reviewing
The journal follows a “double blinded reviewing” process. The reviewers are required to decline to review the papers which have been once commented and reviewed by them. If a reviewer recognizes the identity of author or co-author, he will be automatically entitled to decline to review the given paper. The reviewers should avoid any action or declaration which may disclose their identity to the author(s).
Reviewers should accomplish the reviewing job objectively, impartially and professionally while avoiding personal bias in their judgments. They should also respect the secrecy of reviewing process, knowing that the paper is highly confidential. Hence, they should not share the details of the given paper with others rather than the Editor in Chief, and disseminate them without permission. If the reviewers suspect a misdeed, they should confidentially inform the Editor in Chief about it and hide out their concerns from others and other sections until they have an official declaration from the journal. When reviewing and commenting on a manuscript, the reviewers should always note that reviewing results have crucial role in making scientific judgment. They should be honest with the authors who are concerned about their manuscript; they should sufficiently elaborate and support their scientific judgment. In other words, they should provide the Editor in Chief with ample of details to elucidate their comments to the authors. They should not adopt a bilinear approach, for example, by posing highly intimate and lenient comments to the author a paper, on the one hand, and making an extremely negative evaluation about the same paper in confidential meetings with the Editor in Chief, on the other hand.
Reviewers should be punctual in their reviewing. If a reviewer fails to meet the reviewing deadline, he/she should immediately contact the Editor in Chief either to extend the required time or ask for his/her replacement.