Ethical principles of publishing articles in the journals of Imam Hussein University (AS)
The ethical principles of this publication follow the research ethics charter of the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, as well as the guidelines of the Publication Ethics Committee (COPE), which includes all those involved in the publication of the journal (authors of the quarterly magazine, referees and respected authors).
For full access to these guidelines, definitions and rules, you can visit www.publicationethics.org.
The flowchart is part of the instructions of the "COPE" publication ethics committee in English.
This journal will only publish articles that contain new and original findings related to the journal's topic.
The editorial board always welcomes receiving the research results of professors, researchers and experts. Researchers who wish to have their articles published in this journal should pay attention to the following points:
1- Articles sent to the Quarterly should be the result of scientific studies of the author or authors.
2- The author's specifications of the article should are carefully listed and must be avoided from providing unrelated names.
3- If was used the contents of other publications and books, the source of the contents should be in the correct format and in accordance with the standards provided in the Quarterly Journal Guides section. Any inappropriate use of the content of other's articles and the lack of proper source references will result in the article being withdrawn from the arbitration process.
4. The sent articles, hasn't published in any of the internal and external publications or articles of seminars and scientific assemblies or simultaneously submitted to other journals. Four months after sending article to this quarterly, do not submit it to other journals. Otherwise, in addition to removing the article from the arbitration process, the Quarterly will not accept the author's next articles.
5. The author, whenever finds any error and mistake in his article, should tell it to journal and either makes corrections it or get the article back.
6. Quarterly has the right to reject, accept, edit, tabulate, or modify the received articles.
7. Authors are allowed to publish the published version of their article in an institutional repository or their website by confirming its initial publication in this journal.
The surveying process and research papers publishing should be done accurately fairly. To make all beneficiaries rely on serving justice in the checking and publishing process of journals results in reliability and popularity of the journals and publications. Thus, the code of Ethics of publications has been designed to obtain the purpose of confidence in checking and publishing process of journals.
In this code, the policies of publications are expressed to guarantee the ethical behavior of all participants in the mentioned process. This code has been set up in three parts for authors, editors, and reviewers who are asked to study precisely to ask the editor of the publication any queries with the help of Psychology papers site.
1- The Code of Ethics for the Authors
Originality
As an author begins submitting an article, the article should be a novel and original task. The author is not allowed to submit an article whose part is being studied somewhere else. He/ she cannot submit the article whose part is being studied and assessed to another journal as well. The submitted journal either part of it or the whole in Persian or any other languages is not allowed to be accepted which has been published previously or is going to be published in the future.
Authors should express their primary ideas and tasks explicitly even they have been revised and quoted objectively. If precise sentences or paragraphs are seen in a research paper which seems it is an extract from an essay or the citation from another author, this sentence should be put in quotation mark. The essay ought to specify the origin of each applied datum and also all data. If specific data collection is applied by another author or this author, it should inform the other published or unpublished tasks.
Authors should not submit the article which has been previously submitted to this journal, assessed and finally disapproved by the editor. If the first version was disapproved and the author is willing to submit a modified version for assessment, the essay resubmission justification should be clearly explained for the author or the editor. The permission for essay resubmission for the second time is possible in a particular situation.
Plagiarism
The article registration will inform all authors by sending an email in the site of culture and production of soft power Faculty journals. It is evident that inserting the author `s name in the article is considered as his / her main role in writing the essay if the essay authors have no role to write the essay and their name has not been mentioned. It is necessary to inform the received information by email immediately. All the authors of the article are responsible for the origin of the work.
Plagiarism has a variety of forms:
Plagiarism items will be studied by the journal editors for preserving the validity and the efforts of researchers without any overlook or indulgence based on the level of plagiarism then legally pursued as follows:
Conflict of Interest
The author should express the resources of the financial scheme in the text of paper then applies to submit it. Each of the mentioned resources should be printed with the article. If the type of situation which shows the contrast is doubtful, it should be clarified, any item in the field of conflict of benefits should inform the editor or the publishing office. The responsible author can recommend the probable reviewer for the paper at the time of submitting the essay to the journal. Authors ought to avoid any probable contrasts or its action in selecting the editors and reviewers. This kind of conflict of benefits is not only applied for the responsible author but also includes all the authors ` colleagues in the paper.
The examples of possible Conflict of Benefits are as following:
Authors should not introduce or name the people whom they know that they have studied the previous article and have put forward their hypothesis because this movement is in contrary with the hidden assessment process of the article automatically.
Manuscripts submitted by authors from our institution or from our reviewers' board should be reviewed by referees from outside. papers submitted by reviewers and the Editorial Committee for review or revision and resubmission by the author if necessary.
Double-blind peer review
Journal follows a Double-Blind peer review in which the authors do not know the reviewers and vice versa. The authors should respect the confidentiality of the assessment process and don’t reveal their identity to reviewers and vice versa. For instance, the article should not include any information like self-revelation in a way that the reviewer can identify the author.
Authors should not publish their submitted papers on sites (either articles or first versions) because authors can be identified easily by reviewers in websites.
Authors should not mention the people as editor or reviewer where their previous article or previous copy has been studied and suggested his recommendations because this awareness or knowledge is in contrary with Double-Blind peer review process.
Precision
Authors are finally responsible for the whole content of the submitted paper to the journal. Authors are in charge of representing a precise perspective of the done research as well as an objective debate, especially for the research importance.
Authors should report their findings thoroughly, not to eliminate data relevant to the text or structure of research questions. Regardless of supporting the expected outcomes or being in contrast, results should be reported. Authors should present the features or relevant characteristics of their research, their findings and interpretation precisely. Fundamental suggestions, theories, methods, indexed and research schemes relevant to findings and their interpretations should be revealed and subjected.
The article should contain ample details and resources in a way that researchers access to the same data collection to repeat the research.
If an author discovers a mistake or an important carelessness, he/she is responsible for informing the editor and the procedure immediately to cooperate with the article modification or revision. If the author or publication, by a third person or party, understands that the published paper is suffering from a monumental error, the author is responsible for applying the article modification or revision as well as providing the evidence for the editor based on the precision and correction of the main article.
Authorship
All the mentioned authors should work seriously in a research paper to be responsible for the results. The authorship or compilation should be shared in proportion with different supporting.
Authors should accept the responsibility and validity of the task which includes the authorship validity or compilation, only for the task which they have done practically or they have helped. Authors should typically list the name of the student as the main coauthor in the paper with multiple authors which has adapted from the student`s thesis or dissertation.
The responsible author who submits the paper to the journal should send one sheet or one version of the article to all shared coauthors to satisfy them by paper submission and publishing.
Human rights
Authors are in charge of preserving and supporting privacy, human munificence, human freedom and welfare as well as research participants. The papers which are involved in human affairs (field studies, simulations, interviews), should be done in accordance with human rights regulation necessities in the university author.
Being up to date
Authors should act quickly and appropriately to revise and modify the articles. If an author cannot act before the deadline (maximum one month), should contact the editor for extension or refusal from the assessment process at once.
2- Code of Ethics for Editors
Independence
Editors should preserve their pen and paper independence to work and make sure if authors are free to write. The editors are responsible for accepting or refusing the articles which typically depend on the idea and recommendations of reviewers, by the way, the articles which are inappropriate in the point of view of editors are probably refused without reviewers` assessment.
No biases
Editors should improve their position score and circumstances confidentially, constructively unbiased. Editors carry the essay review duty only based on scientific merits. Editors should act unbiased, without personal or ideological advocacy.
Conflict of Benefits
Editors should avoid any action which increases conflicts of benefits with its unreasonable aspect. For instance:
To avoid a potential conflict of benefits, the editor is not allowed to publish the article which is not clearly identified, reviewed or partly reviewed. Liability, writing authority and editing each article by the editor, submitted to the journal, should be submitted by the editor to another qualified person like a previous editor or one of the members of the editorial board. To apply written considerations in the article by the author or editor in any form is not acceptable.
Editors should avoid any paper study which is in contrast with their real or potential conflict of benefits. The contrast which is due to the competitive, partnership, financial or other relations with any other companies, organizations or institutes related to the article. The examples related to the relations which show conflicts of benefits of the editor or author are:
Double-Blind peer review
The journal follows a Double-Blind peer review in which authors do not know reviewers and vice versa. The articles of the magazine seem not to be assessed mutually and stealthily. Assessment standard should be expressed crystal clear.
Confidentiality
Editors and their board of editorials are not allowed to reveal relevant information of the article to anyone but reviewers and authors. Official and formal procedures should be determined to preserve the confidentiality of assessment process.
Editors are expected to make sure the confidentiality of Double-Blind peer review process and lack of information revelation which may reveal the authors` identity to reviewers and vice versa. Reviewers` anonymity can be breached only when reviewers permit editors to reveal their identity.
Editors should make sure that their editorial board are compatible and coordinated with them. Some parts of a submitted article which has not been published, are not allowed to be used in personal research of an editor without the author `s written permission. Confidential ideas or information which has been got by article assessment should be preserved privately not to be used toward private benefits.
Assessment quality
Typically, two reviewers are invited to express their idea about an article. The editor should evaluate all assessments qualitatively. The editor may rarely edit an assessed article before submitting to the author (for example, for eliminating an expression which reveals the reviewer`s identity or does not send the assessed article in case it is not constructive or appropriate. Rankings and scores of assessment quality as well as other functional features assessed periodically by the editor to make sure of the optimized operation of journal.
These scores and rankings should help decision makings in the field of reappointment of reviewing team and continuous requests. Individual operation data should be accessible for editors and kept confidentially.
Being up to date
To guarantee the articles assessment and quick response to the authors ` requests about assessment status in a determined deadline (maximum one week after receiving the article ) editors should apply primary assessment and reviewer selection.
Quality of decision
Editors are responsible for describing the decisions of the board of editorials for authors and their articles. Editors should write high-quality letters where these letters represent the combination of the reviewers` recommendations and extra suggestions for another author. Editors should not attach the result of the decision in the letter format without explanation to the advice and suggestions of the reviewer.
Precision
As the editor receives convincing evidence from a reviewer based on false concept or results of an unpublished article, should inform the procedure to the author. If similar evidence about an article were published, the editor should apply an emergency modified publishing, return previous one, and express relevant matters with other notes appropriately.
Authority
The editor is responsible for the final authority and responsibility of the journal. They should respect journal formation (such as readers, authors, reviewers, editors, the staff of the board of editorial) and try his / her best for the truthful and honest content of the journal as well as continuous improvement. The editor should select members of the board of editorial based on written assessment board, determine their responsibilities and evaluate their actions regularly.
Operation
The editor should design the operation index of the journal. Journal is going to be published based on annual auditing related to admission level, publishing intervals, submitted articles percentage for revision and foreign revision as well as the operation data.
Operation indexes ought to improve the journal operation for assessing the revolution of articles along with publishing processes.
3- Code of Ethics for Reviewers
Reciprocal communication
Evaluation and studying are professional activities for journals which have valued the whole profession to be encouraged. It is usually expected that the researchers who submit their articles in a journal accept the journal invitation for their article assessment.
Right to refuse and rejection
Abstaining or rejection of an article assessment based on time or status is essential. For example, a reviewer who is not qualified enough to review a research paper should abstain from assessing the article. By potential conflicts of benefits, reviewers should abstain from their assessment. If the reviewers are asked to assess an article which has been previously assessed, they should inform the editor of primary evaluation details unless they are asked to reassess.
Double-Blind peer review
The journal has a process of a Double-Blind peer review. Reviewers should abstain from assessing the articles which they have previously provided written suggestions in the first version. If a reviewer is aware of the author`s identity or coauthor`s identity, is involved naturally in assessing the article. Reviewers are also responsible for avoiding writing, telling and doing whatever reveals their identity for the author.
Conflict of Interest
Generally, reviewers should abstain from assessing the articles which they think they are involved in conflicts of benefits such as shared financial, organizational and personal benefits or any connections with other companies, institutes or related individuals with essay, the reviewers who may have conflicts of benefits in the field of a special article. This conflict should be clarified for the editor to determine the appropriate level of assessment. For instance, there is a situation where the reviewer is editing and evaluating a similar article in that journal or another along with a similar research paper, keep in mind that under the process of Double-Blind peer review, as reviewers do not know the authors, it is unlikely that reviewers are aware of the involved conflicts of benefits among authors. Thus, they are not limited through these conflicts. If reviewers become aware of such conflicts, they should inform the editor of the journal.
No biases
Reviewers should assess articles objectively, fairly and professionally. They are recommended to avoid any personal bias in their reviews.
Confidentiality
Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the assessment process. It is important to recognize whether this article is confidential or not. Reviewers should not discuss anyone except editor about the article and they are not allowed to transfer the essay information to someone else. If reviewers are suspected to the wrong deed should inform editor confidentially, not expressing their worries to other departments till official announcement.
Precision
To assess the article and say recommendations to the author (authors), reviewers should always know that the assessment influences the peer review. Reviewers should be honest with authors about their relevant article worries.
Reviewers ought to define and support their scientific review sufficiently and, it means they should provide details and ample information for the editor to justify their advice to the author. Reviewers cannot be bipolar, for instance, on the one hand, very friendly and intimate assessments facing with author and on the other hand, very bitter assessment in person discussion with editor.
Punctuality
Reviewers should act quickly in their assessing and reviewing. If a reviewer cannot review his task in a determined deadline (maximum one month) he/she ought to connect with the editor for extending the reviewing time or new reviewer selection.
COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices
Chief Editors is accountable for everything published in the journal. This means the editors
1.1 strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
1.2 strive to constantly improve their journal;
1.3 have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish;
1.4 champion freedom of expression;
1.5 maintain the integrity of the academic record.
1.6 preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
1.7 always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.
Best Practice for Editors would include
2.1 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:
4.1 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.
4.2 Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
4.3 New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.
4.4 A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
4.5 Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions.
4.6 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.
4.7 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:
5.1 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.
5.2 Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
5.3 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:
6.1 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:
7.1 The relationship of editors to the University of Imam Hussein and the owner is based firmly on the principle of editorial independence.
7.2 Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from the University of Imam Hussein.
7.3 Editors have a written contract(s) setting out their relationship with University of Imam Hussein.
7.4 The terms of this contract is in line with the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.
Best practice for editors would include:
8.1 Editors should strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely
8.2 Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.
Best practice for editors would include:
9.1 Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.
Best practice for editors would include:
10.1 Editors must obey laws on confidentiality in their own jurisdiction. Regardless of local statutes, however, they should always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions. It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from people who might recognize themselves or be identified by others (e.g. from case reports or photographs). It may be possible to publish individual information without explicit consent if public interest considerations outweigh possible harms, it is impossible to obtain consent and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.
Best practice for editors would include:
Note that consent to take part in research or undergo treatment is not the same as consent to publish personal details, images or quotations.
11.1 Editors should endeavor to ensure that research they publish was carried out according to the relevant internationally Declaration of Helsinki for clinical research, and the AERA and BERA guidelines for educational research.
11.2 Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. However, editors should recognize that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.
Best practice for editors would include:
12.1 Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
12.2 Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
12.3 Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable.
12.4 Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate.
12.5 Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.
13.1 Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
13.2 Editors should follow the COPE guidelines on retractions.
Best practice for editors would include:
14.1 Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with the University of Imam Hussein to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.
Best practice for editors would include:
15.1 Editors should encourage and be willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in their journal.
15.2 Authors of criticized material should be given the opportunity to respond.
15.3 Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.
Best practice for editors would include:
16.1 Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE.
16.2 Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart on complaints.
17.1 Journals should have policies and systems in place to ensure that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions (e.g. advertising departments should operate independently from editorial departments).
17.2 Editors should have declared policies on advertising in relation to the content of the journal and on processes for publishing sponsored supplements.
17.3 Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction needs to be included in which case it should be clearly identified.
Best practice for editors would include:
Complaints and appeals
Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart.
Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further.
**Plagiarism: All articles sent to this publication are reviewed by plagiarism software.
Informed Consent:
In Scientific Journal of Security Horizons, all participants in human subjects' articles have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, etc., should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the participants (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. informed consent for this purpose requires that an identifiable participants be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should disclose to these patients whether any potential identifiable material might be available via the Internet as well as in print after publication. participants consent should be written and archived either with the journal, the authors, or both, as dictated by local regulations or laws.
Diagram of guidelines of "COPE" publishing ethics committee in English language
