• Home
  • Menu
  • Publication Ethics
  • OpenAccess
  • Publication Ethics

    Science and Research branch of Islamic Azad University Publication Ethics

    Science and Research branch of Islamic Azad University Publication is committed to upholding the integrity of the work we publish. The value of academic publishing relies on everyone involved behaving ethically. The following points are only intended to give a broad overview and are not exhaustive. We encourage our authors and editors to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website. The publication of a manuscript in a peer-reviewed work* is expected to follow standards of ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: authors, editors, and reviewers.

    Authors are requested to adhere to following guidelines

    Plagiarism

    Plagiarism is unethical. Authors are required to only submit their original manuscripts. In case material – in whatever form – of others is used, it must be appropriately cited or quoted.

    Multiple manuscript submission

    Authors should not submit manuscripts with essentially the same content to more than one publication*, except if expressly communicated and agreed. Otherwise submitting the same manuscript to more than one publication simultaneously is considered to be unethical, unacceptable, publishing behaviour.

    Source acknowledgement

    Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced the content of their work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the original source.

    Authors listing

    Only those authors who have made a significant contribution to the manuscript should be listed as authors or co-authors. Others who have participated to a lesser extent should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

    Errors in published work

    Authors who discover a major error in their own published work, are required to notify the publisher or editor and assist with withdrawal or correction of the manuscript.

    Editors** are requested to adhere to following guidelines

    Publication decisions

    Editors are ultimately responsible for the acceptance of submitted manuscripts. An editor may confer with other editors, editorial board members, or reviewers in making this decision.

    Unbiased

    Editors should evaluate manuscripts solely for their intellectual content without any bias to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

    Confidentiality

    The editor and any editorial staff is not to disclose any information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, or the publisher.

    Disclosure and conflicts of interest

    Material from submitted, unpublished manuscripts should be kept confidential and must not be used by others without the express written consent of the author. Editors should not consider reviewing manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest.

    Non-peer reviewed sections of an academic publication* should be clearly identified.

    Self citation

    Editors should not oblige authors to cite the publication a manuscript has been submitted to, as a condition for acceptance of a manuscript.

    Reviewers are requested to adhere to following guidelines

    Contribution to editorial decisions

    The purpose of peer review is to assists editors in making editorial decisions and may also assist the author in improving the paper through editorial communications.

    Promptness

    Referees who cannot review a manuscript promptly should notify the editor immediately and step down from the review process.

    Confidentiality

    All manuscripts in the review process are to be treated as confidential and not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

    Objectivity

    Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

    Source acknowledgement

    Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work of which they have personal knowledge.

    Disclosure and conflict of interest

    Material from submitted, unpublished manuscripts should be kept confidential and must not be used by others without the express written consent of the author. Reviewers should not consider reviewing manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest.

    * A journal, book series, edited volume or reference work.

    ** Editor should also be read as Managing Editor, Editor in Chief or Associate Editor.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    References:

    Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website:

    http://publicationethics.org

    http://www.brill.com

     

    Additional resources:

     

    American Educational Research Association (AERA): http://www.aera.net/Portals/38/docs/About_AERA/CodeOfEthics(1).pdf

    American Political Science Association (APSA) -- http://www.apsanet.org/content_9350.cfm

    American Psychological Association (APA) -- http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx

    British Educational Research Association (BERA) -- http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/Ethical%20Guidelines

    Council of Science Editors (CSE) -- http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3331