Role of Authors
In this journal, authors are responsible for the entire research process, from idea to publication, and must ensure that their work is original, ethical, and accompanied by accurate reporting.
Scientific Integrity and Accountability
Substantial Contribution: All individuals listed as authors must have made a significant contribution to the conception or design of the research, data collection, analysis or interpretation, or the creation of new software used in the study. Critical revision of the intellectual content and approval of the final version for publication are also required.
Accountability: All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that any questions regarding the accuracy or integrity of any part of the research are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Declaration of Originality and Submission
Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original and has not been previously published (except in permitted formats such as preprints or theses). Submission of an article signifies that the work is not under consideration elsewhere.
Citation and Plagiarism
The use of others' words or works must be accompanied by proper citation or quotation. Plagiarism, including copying substantial portions of another's article without attribution, is unethical and unacceptable.
Ethical Research
When human participants are involved, the author must confirm that informed consent was obtained and provide details. For animal research, adherence to the 3Rs principles (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) is mandatory.
Transparency and Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
Authors must disclose any financial or personal relationships (e.g., employment, grants, or stock ownership) within the last three years that could have biased their work.
Funding Sources
All sources of funding for the research must be listed in detail. If no financial support was received, this must also be stated.
Contributor Roles
Authors are asked to specify each member's role using standard contribution taxonomies (e.g., conceptualization, methodology, writing – original draft, etc.).
Use of Generative AI
The use of generative AI in the preparation of the manuscript must be disclosed in a statement at the end of the text. AI tools cannot be listed as an author or co‑author. Generative AI is not permitted to produce new content, but literary editing to improve the grammar and writing of the author's existing text is allowed.
Role of Reviewers
Reviewers play a key role in validating scientific works and improving the quality of published research through expert, independent evaluation.
Impartiality and Ethical Conduct
Independent Evaluation: The peer review process generally involves evaluation by at least two external, independent reviewers. Reviewers are selected by the editor based on their appropriate expertise in the relevant field.
Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively; personal criticism of the author is inappropriate and unprofessional. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the submitted manuscript as a confidential document. They must not share the review report or any information about the manuscript with anyone, nor are they entitled to use unpublished material or privileged information obtained during the review process for personal gain.
Conflicts of Interest: Before agreeing to review, reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., collaboration with the authors within the last three years or shared institutional affiliation) to the editor. If a conflict exists, they should consult the editor on whether to decline the review.
Citation Ethics: Reviewers should not suggest citations to their own or their colleagues' work unless there are genuine scientific reasons. They should avoid recommendations made solely to increase citation counts.
Use of Generative AI in Reviewing: Reviewers are prohibited from uploading submitted manuscripts or any part thereof into generative AI tools for evaluation or assessment. This prohibition is to protect the confidentiality and proprietary rights of the authors. Reviewers are only permitted to use AI for literary editing of their own review report (to improve language and readability), provided that they clearly disclose this to the editorial team.
Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on several factors, including:
Is the manuscript technically sound, and are the arguments, facts, and logic robust?
What is the degree of novelty and significance of the work for the research community or relevant field?
How sound is the methodology, and what is the quality of data presentation?
Are the claims and conclusions logical and supported by the presented results?
Are there any ethical issues in the manuscript that should be brought to the editor's attention?
Role of the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board
The Editor-in-Chief is the final authority in the publication process, adhering to COPE ethical principles (https://publicationethics.org) and the policies of the Editorial Board.
Decision-Making and Scientific Integrity
Publication Decision: The Editor-in-Chief is independently responsible for deciding to accept or reject submitted articles. This decision is based on the scientific validity of the work and its importance to readers. The Editor-in-Chief acts within the framework of editorial policies and legal requirements regarding libel, copyright, and plagiarism.
Managing Peer Review: The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for managing the review process fairly, impartially, and in a timely manner. This includes obtaining reports from at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise and carefully checking reviewers' conflict of interest disclosures.
Final Authority: The Editor-in-Chief oversees the review process for all submitted manuscripts (including special issues) and has ultimate responsibility for accepting or rejecting articles.
Managing Conflicts of Interest
The Editor-in-Chief must not be involved in the decision-making process for manuscripts that they have written, that have been written by family members or close colleagues, or that are related to their commercial interests. The handling of such manuscripts must be carried out entirely independently by another editor.
Protecting Scientific Ethics
The Editor-in-Chief protects the integrity of published scientific records by investigating and evaluating reported or suspected cases of misconduct (at the levels of research, publication, review, and editing). The use of the Samim Noor system (https://www.samimnoor.ir) or the Iran Doc similarity check system (https://tik.irandoc.ac.ir) is mandatory in this regard.
Corrections and Retractions
If substantial evidence of error or misconduct is provided, the Editor-in-Chief, in collaboration with the publisher, will issue a prompt correction, retraction, or expression of concern.
Use of Generative AI
Editors-in-Chief are prohibited from uploading all or part of submitted manuscripts into generative AI tools. Furthermore, editors-in-chief must not use AI tools to assist in the evaluation process or decision-making regarding manuscripts.
Role of the Editorial Board
The Editorial Board generally supports the Editor-in-Chief in the following areas:
Final Approval: Submitted manuscripts will be published only after undergoing the review process and receiving final approval from the Editorial Board.
Governance: The Editor-in-Chief follows the general policies established by the Editorial Board in their decisions.
Oversight of Special Issues: For special issues or thematic collections, a "Guest Editor" may propose a submission to the Editor-in-Chief, but the Editor-in-Chief (with the implicit oversight of the Editorial Board) has ultimate responsibility for decisions in order to maintain high standards.
Journal Reputation: The Editorial Board consistently supports the Editor-in-Chief in maintaining the integrity and reputation of the journal's scientific records.
