State Studies - Publication Ethics

“This journal is following of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and complies with the highest ethical standards in accordance with ethical laws”.

General Duties and Responsibilities of Editors:

Editors should be accountable for everything published in their journals.
strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
strive to constantly improve their journal;
have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish;
champion freedom of expression;
maintain the integrity of the academic record;
preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

Author Ethical Considerations:

The authors should not falsify or fabricate data, data sources, findings, claims, or credentials.
Academic honesty should be considered by authors. They should reference when they reported or utilized any materials or data verbatim no matter it is published, unpublished, or electronically available.
No discrimination with regard to race; ethnicity; culture; nationality; gender; age; religion; language; disability; or socioeconomic status; should be found in the submitted manuscripts.
All the authors should get the informed consent of the participants of their studies. In consonant, protection of participants’ privacy and maintaining their anonymity should be meticulously considered in the manuscripts.

Basic Principles to which Peer Reviewers should Adhere:

Peer reviewers should:

only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner
respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.
not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others
declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments
acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner
recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.

Expectations during the Peer-Review Process

On being approached to review, peer reviewers should:

respond in a reasonable time-frame, especially if they cannot do the review.
declare if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review
only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame
declare any potentially conflicting or competing interests
follow journals’ policies on situations they consider to represent a conflict to reviewing
review afresh any manuscript they have previously reviewed for another journal as it may have changed between the two submissions
ensure suggestions for alternative reviewers are based on suitability and not influenced by personal considerationsnot agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review.
decline to review if they feel unable to provide a fair and unbiased review.
decline to review if they have been involved with any of the work in the manuscript or its reporting.
decline to review if asked to review a manuscript that is very similar to one they have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.

During Review

Peer reviewers should:

notify the journal immediately and seek advice if they discover either a conflicting interest that wasn’t apparent when they agreed to the review
notify the journal as soon as possible if they find they do not have the expertise to assess all aspects of the manuscript
not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript, including junior researchers they are mentoring, without first obtaining permission from the journal
keep all manuscript and review details confidential.
in the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work
not intentionally prolong the review process
ensure their review is based on the merits of the work and not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any personal, financial, or other conflicting consideration
not contact the authors directly without the permission of the journal

When Preparing the Report

Peer reviewers should:

be objective and constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript.
not make derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations
be specific in their criticisms, and provide evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements
be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues that are due to the authors writing in a language that is not their own
make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript
not prepare their report in a way that reflects badly or unfairly on another person.
ensure their comments and recommendations for the editor are consistent with their report for the authors
not suggest that authors include citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work merely to increase the reviewer’s (or their associates’) citation count

Expectations Post Review

Peer reviewers should:

continue to keep details of the manuscript and its review confidential.
respond promptly if contacted by a journal about matters related to their review of a manuscript and provide the information required.
contact the journal if anything relevant comes to light after they have submitted their review that might affect their original feedback and recommendations.
read the reviews from the other reviewers, if these are provided by the journal, to improve their own understanding of the topic or the decision reached.
try to accommodate requests from journals to review revisions or resubmissions of manuscripts they have reviewed.

Plagiarism

Allameh Tabataba’i University (ATU), as the leading university of humanities and social sciences in Iran, holds in high regard authentic and original scholarly works and research efforts. In line with this principle, the Allameh Tabataba’i University Press has zero tolerance for plagiarism and meticulously studies each and every article submitted to its journals to ensure all ATU-published material remain plagiarism-free. It is worth mentioning that since plagiarism is the most common misstep in producing scholarly work, the ATU Press takes all possible measures to avoid and tackle this issue.

The ATU Press follows the definitions and guidelines as determined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). You can find the complete list of COPE guideline material on publication ethics, codes and regulations at www.publicationethics.org/resources.

With regard to plagiarism, all ATU journals abide by the following definition provided by the APA Publication Manual (6^th Ed.) (2010) which defines plagiarism as:

Using ideas, words, or a product without crediting the original source
Passing off someone else's ideas, words, or product as your own
Presenting as new an idea or product created by someone else.

As an umbrella term, plagiarism covers different acts:

Verbatim Copying: Word-for-word use, partially or completely, of any text or material without using quotation marks and/or reference markers in order to refer to the original source;
Superficial/Inadequate Paraphrasing: Acquiring ideas from an original source and changing the wording of the source written material in a way that the diction of the original author(s) is still evident.
Visual Aid Plagiarism: Use of material such as graphs, images or tables, partially or completely, without citation;
Paraphrasing without Reference: Acquiring ideas from an original source and reproducing the source written material with your own diction without using reference markers and/or citations.

It should be noted that, regardless of the source, the ATU Press regards any uncited or uncredited use of others’ works and productions as plagiarism. Such sources include published/unpublished authors; published/unpublished theses and dissertations; speeches; authors’ own works (incorrect use of which leads to self-plagiarism); PowerPoint presentations; instructional visual aids; journal articles; magazines and newspapers etc.

The ATU Press carefully studies all submitted articles, and plagiarism issues will be tackled in all article publication stages:

In case plagiarism is detected in newly submitted articles, the Review Committee of the relevant journal will decided on the nature of this error. In case the act of plagiarism is ruled as a mistake, the author(s) will be notified immediately and will be given an opportunity to correct this issue. In case it is decided that a paper or article contains deliberate plagiarism, the author(s) will be notified of the matter, and they will be put in the ATU Press Blacklist. Entry into the blacklist will result in the author(s) name(s) being distributed among similar scholarly and university publications in order to stop future works from the author(s). Also, individuals who commit plagiarism will be prohibited from sending any articles to the ATU Press for a period of five years from the date of entry into the blacklist.
Under remote circumstances when an article which contains plagiarism has been accepted and published, besides the above measures, the article will be immediately retracted from all ATU Press publications, whether in print or online, and this retraction will be officially announced on the ATU Press website.

The ATU Press uses state-of-the-art web-based and offline plagiarism detection software to detect plagiarized work and stop the publication of such materials. These software are linked to various worldwide databases and crosscheck newly-submitted work with vast amounts of material of the same category to verify the work’s originality and authenticity.

State Studies journal is committed to following and applying guidelines and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in its reviewing and publishing process and issues. For more information on COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts please see: (https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts-new/translations).

COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices for Editors

(https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf), (https://publicationethics.org/files/2008%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf)

Everything published in the journal is the responsibility of the editor-in-chief. This means that the editors must:
Strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
Strive to constantly improve their journal;
Have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish;
Champion freedom of expression;
Maintain the integrity of the academic record;
Preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
Always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

Best Practice for Editors would include:

Actively seeking the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes.
Encouraging and being aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing their journal’s processes in the light of new findings.
Supporting initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct.
Supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics.
Assessing the effects of their journal policies on author and reviewer behavior and revising policies, as required, to encourage responsible behavior and discourage misconduct.

Relations with Readers

Readers should be informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.

Best practice for editors would include:

Ensuring that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers including statistical review.
Adopting processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting including technical editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists.
Considering developing a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of non-research articles.
Adopting authorship or contributorship systems that promote good practice (i.e. so that listings accurately reflect who did the work) and discourage misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest authors).
Informing readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation.

Relations with authors

Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.
Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions.
Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
Editors should provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor following the standards within the relevant field.

Best practice for editors would include

Reviewing author instructions regularly and providing links to relevant guidelines.
Publishing relevant competing interests for all contributors and publishing corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication.
Ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests).
Respecting requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are well-reasoned and practicable.
Publishing details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct.
Publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles.

Relations with reviewers

Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.

Best practice for editors would include:

Encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions, inappropriate data manipulation and presentation)
Encouraging reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism
Considering providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications (e.g. links to cited references and bibliographic searches)
Sending reviewers’ comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libelous remarks
Seeking to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal
Encouraging academic institutions to recognize peer review activities as part of the scholarly process.
Monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this is of high standard.
Developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating this on the basis of reviewer performance.
Ceasing to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews.
Using a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (e.g., author suggestions, bibliographic databases).
Following the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct.

Relations with editorial board members

Editors should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.

Best practice for editors would include:

Having policies in place for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased review
Identifying suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal regularly reviewing the composition of the editorial board.
Providing clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties, which might include:
Acting as ambassadors for the journal.
Supporting and promoting the journal.
Seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g., from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions.
Reviewing submissions to the journal
Accepting to write editorials, reviews and commentaries on papers in their specialist area
Attending and contributing to editorial board meetings
Consulting editorial board members periodically (e.g., once a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenge.