To gain a deeper understanding of journal regulations and ethical codes, readers may refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) or the Code of Research Ethics approved by the Deputy of Research and Technology of the Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology of Iran.
The Editor-in-Chief and members of the Editorial Board must maintain their intellectual and editorial independence and work to ensure that authors have freedom of expression. The responsibility for accepting or rejecting manuscripts rests with the Editor-in-Chief. Under normal and standard procedures, this involves the opinions and recommendations of peer reviewers. However, manuscripts deemed entirely inappropriate by the Editor-in-Chief may be rejected without undergoing peer review.
The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board members must utilize their positions and influence with confidentiality, impartiality, and in a constructive manner. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for judging manuscripts solely on the basis of scientific merit. The Editor-in-Chief must act without favoritism or personal or ideological bias.
The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board members must avoid any action that creates, or appears to create, a conflict of interest. For instance, to avoid potential conflicts of interest, the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board members must not publish material that is not clearly identifiable, has not been peer-reviewed, or has undergone unilateral blind review. The responsibility and authority to write and edit any manuscript authored by the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board members and submitted to the journal office must be delegated by the Editor-in-Chief to another competent individual, such as a former Editor-in-Chief, another member of the Editorial Board, external reviewers, or consultants. Any form of editorial or writing assistance provided to an author (in this context, an Editor-in-Chief/Board member acting as an author) is strictly unacceptable.
The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board members must refrain from reviewing any manuscript that presents a real or potential conflict of interest, whether arising from competitive, collaborative, financial, or other relationships and connections with any author, company, or institution related to the manuscript. Examples of ties that indicate an Editor/Board-Author conflict of interest include:
The journal follows a double-blind peer review process, whereby the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and vice versa. In cases where journal manuscripts are not subject to double-blind peer review, the specific evaluation standard must be clearly stated.
Editors and Editorial Board members must not disclose information related to a manuscript to anyone other than the reviewers and authors. Formal administrative procedures should be established to maintain the confidentiality of the review process. Editors and Editorial Board members are expected to ensure the confidentiality of the double-blind review process and to prevent the disclosure of information that could reveal the identities of authors to reviewers or vice versa. Reviewer anonymity may only be breached if the Editor-in-Chief obtains permission from the reviewers to disclose their identities.
The Editor-in-Chief must ensure that Editorial Board members agree with this practice. Unpublished portions of a submitted manuscript must not be used in the personal research of the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board members without the written consent of the author. Confidential information or ideas obtained through the evaluation of manuscripts must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
Typically, two reviewers are invited to provide their opinion on a manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief must routinely and regularly review and evaluate all assessments for quality. In rare circumstances, the Editor-in-Chief may edit a reviewed manuscript before sending it to the author (e.g., to remove a phrase that reveals the reviewer’s identity) or may choose not to send a reviewed manuscript to the author if it is not constructive or appropriate. Quality ratings and scores for reviews, along with other performance metrics, should be periodically evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief to ensure optimal journal performance. These ratings and scores should also aid in making decisions regarding the reappointment of review board members and ongoing review requests. Individual reviewer performance data should be accessible to the Editor-in-Chief and maintained confidentially.
The journal office, Editor-in-Chief, and Editorial Board members must act to ensure the timely evaluation of all manuscripts and provide prompt responses to authors’ inquiries regarding the review status, undertaking initial assessments and selecting reviewers within the specified timeframe (a maximum of one week after manuscript receipt).
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for communicating the Editorial Board’s decisions regarding the authors’ manuscripts. The Editor-in-Chief must write high-quality letters that synthesize reviewer recommendations and offer additional suggestions to the author. The Editor-in-Chief should not simply attach a decision outcome to a letter without providing an explanation alongside the reviewer’s recommendations and suggestions.
When the Editor-in-Chief receives convincing evidence from a reviewer that the concept or outcome of an unpublished manuscript is incorrect, they must promptly inform the author. If similar evidence is presented for a published article, the Editor-in-Chief must take immediate action to publish a correction, retract the previous statement, state the relevant case, or issue other appropriate notices.
The ultimate authority and responsibility of the journal shall rest with the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief must respect the journal’s stakeholders (including readers, authors, reviewers, editors, editorial staff, the managing editor, and the publisher) and strive to ensure the integrity and honesty of the journal’s content and its continuous quality improvement. The Editor-in-Chief must select members of the editorial team, including the editorial review board, define their rights and responsibilities, and regularly evaluate their performance.
The Editor-in-Chief must design the journal’s performance indicators. The journal should publish an annual audit concerning acceptance rates, publication intervals, the percentage of submitted articles sent for external review, and other performance data. Performance indicators should be used to assess developments in manuscript review and editorial processes, thereby improving the journal’s performance.
