Code of Ethics for Research and Scientific Publications of the University of Religions
In this code, the policies of publications are expressed to guarantee the ethical behavior of all participants in the mentioned process. This code of ethics is applied for all submitted papers to the publications of the University of Religions from July 2012 which may be revised and modified by the publication’s authorities. 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 religious 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 language 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 marks. 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 If specific data collection is applied by another author or this author, it should inform the other published or unpublished tasks.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 to the site of Islamic Inquiries. 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. All assessment rights for plagiarism in the journal are reserved.
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 responsible author must send the conflict-of-interest form and the commitment letter when submitting the article. File
The author should express the resources of a financial scheme in the text of the paper then applies to submit it. Each of the mentioned resources should be printed with an 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 to the responsible author but also includes all the author’s colleagues in the paper.
The examples of possible Conflict of Benefits are as follows.
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 contrary to the hidden assessment process of the article automatically.
Manuscripts submitted by authors from our institution or 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 on websites.
Authors should not mention the people like editors or reviewers where their previous article or previous copy has been studied and suggested his recommendations because this awareness or knowledge is 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 their 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 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 the 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 include 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 who have 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 under 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 do it before the deadline (maximum one month), have to 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 potential conflict of benefits, the editor is not allowed to publish an article that is not 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 the previous editor or one of the members of the board of editors. 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 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 publication 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 standards should be expressed crystal clear.
Confidentiality
Editors and their board of editorials are not allowed to reveal relevant information about the article to anyone but reviewers and authors. Official and formal procedures should be determined to preserve the confidentiality of the assessment process.
Editors are expected to make sure the confidentiality of the 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 identities.
Editors should make sure that their board of editorials is compatible and coordinated with them. Some parts of a submitted article that has not been published, are not allowed to be used in the 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 it to the author (for example, for eliminating an expression that 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, are assessed periodically by the editor to make sure of the optimized operation of the 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 confidential.
Being up to date
To guarantee the article’s assessment and quick response to the author’s 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 the reviewer based on false concepts or results of an unpublished article, should inform procedure to the author. If similar evidence about an article were published, the editor should apply an emergency modified publishing, return the 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, 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 the 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 that 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 rejecting 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 that has been previously assessed, they should inform the editor of primary evaluation details unless they are asked to reassess.
Double-Blind peer review
The publication has a process of Double-Blind peer review. Reviewers should abstain from assessing the articles that have previously provided written suggestions in the first version. If a reviewer is aware of the author’s identity or coauthor’s identity, it 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 recommend avoiding 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 with anyone except the editor about the article and they are not allowed to transfer the essay information to someone else. If reviewers are suspected of the wrong deed should inform the editor confidentially, not expressing their worries to other departments till the official announcement.
Precision
To assess the article and say recommendations to the authors, reviewers should always know that assessment influences practical 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 assessment and review. If a reviewer cannot review his task within a determined deadline (maximum one month) he/she ought to connect with the editor for extending the reviewing time or new reviewer selection.