A) Authors’ Roles
In this journal, authors bear responsibility for the entire research process, from the initial idea to final publication. They must ensure that their work is original, ethically conducted, and accurately reported.
All individuals listed as authors must have made a significant contribution to at least one of the following: the conception or design of the study; data collection, analysis, or interpretation; or the development of new software used in the research.
In addition, authors must participate in the critical revision of the intellectual content and approve the final version of the manuscript for publication.
All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that any questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the research are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original and has not been previously published, except in permitted forms such as preprints or theses.
Submission of a manuscript implies that it is not under consideration elsewhere.
Any use of the words, ideas, or works of others must be accompanied by proper citation or quotation.
Plagiarism—including the copying of substantial portions of another work without appropriate attribution—is unethical and unacceptable.
For studies involving human participants, authors must confirm that informed consent was obtained and provide relevant details.
For animal studies, compliance with the 3R principles (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) is mandatory.
Authors must disclose any financial or personal relationships (such as employment, grants, or share ownership) within the past three years that could have influenced their work.
All sources of research funding must be clearly stated. If no financial support was received, this must also be explicitly declared.
Authors are encouraged to specify each contributor’s role using the CRediT taxonomy (e.g., conceptualization, methodology, draft writing).
Any use of generative AI tools in manuscript preparation must be disclosed in a statement at the end of the manuscript.
Reviewers play a critical role in validating scholarly work and enhancing the quality of published research through expert, independent evaluation.
The peer review process generally involves assessment by at least two independent external reviewers, selected by the Editor‑in‑Chief based on relevant subject expertise.
Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate and unprofessional. Reviewers should clearly articulate their assessments and support them with reasoned arguments.
Reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. They must not share review reports or manuscript‑related information with others, nor may they use unpublished material or privileged information obtained through peer review for personal benefit.
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation, such as collaboration with the authors within the past three years or shared institutional affiliation.
Where a conflict exists, reviewers should consult the Editor‑in‑Chief regarding the necessity of recusal.
Reviewers should not recommend citations to their own work or that of close colleagues unless there is a genuine scholarly justification. Suggestions made solely to inflate citation counts are unethical.
Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading submitted manuscripts, in whole or in part, into generative AI tools for evaluation or assessment. This prohibition safeguards confidentiality and authors’ intellectual property rights.
Reviewers may use AI tools only for language editing of their own review reports (to improve clarity and readability), provided that such use is fully disclosed to the editorial team.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on multiple factors, including:
C) Role of the Editor‑in‑Chief and the Editorial Board
The Editor‑in‑Chief is the final authority in the publication process and acts in accordance with the ethical principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
(https://publicationethics.org) and the policies established by the Editorial Board.
Decision‑Making and Research Integrity
The Editor‑in‑Chief is independently responsible for deciding whether submitted manuscripts are accepted or rejected. Decisions are based on the scholarly merit, originality, and relevance of the work to the journal’s readership.
The Editor‑in‑Chief operates within the framework of editorial policies and applicable legal requirements concerning defamation, copyright, and plagiarism.
Editors are required to manage the peer review process in a fair, impartial, and timely manner. This includes obtaining reports from at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise and carefully evaluating reviewers’ conflict‑of‑interest declarations.
The Editor‑in‑Chief oversees the peer review process for all submitted manuscripts, including those submitted to special issues, and bears final responsibility for acceptance or rejection decisions.
The Editor‑in‑Chief must not participate in the editorial decision‑making process for manuscripts:
Such manuscripts must be handled independently by another editor to ensure impartiality.
By investigating reported or suspected cases of misconduct at the levels of research, publication, peer review, or editorial handling, the Editor‑in‑Chief safeguards the integrity of the journal’s scholarly record.
The use of the Samim‑e Noor system (https://www.samimnoor.ir) or the IranDoc similarity‑checking system (https://tik.irandoc.ac.ir) is mandatory for this purpose.
When credible evidence of error or misconduct is identified, the Editor‑in‑Chief, in cooperation with the publisher, will take prompt action to issue a correction, retraction, or expression of concern, as appropriate.
Editors are prohibited from uploading submitted manuscripts, in whole or in part, into generative AI tools.
Editors must also refrain from using AI tools to assist with the evaluation or editorial decision‑making process.
Editorial Board Role:
The Editorial Board generally supports the Editor‑in‑Chief in the following capacities:
Manuscripts are published only after completing the peer review process and receiving the final approval of the Editorial Board.
In making editorial decisions, the Editor‑in‑Chief acts in alignment with the general policies and strategic direction established by the Editorial Board.
In the case of special issues or thematic collections, a Guest Editor may submit recommendations to the Editor‑in‑Chief.
However, the Editor‑in‑Chief—under the implicit supervision of the Editorial Board—retains final responsibility for decisions in order to maintain high scholarly standards.
The Editorial Board consistently supports the Editor‑in‑Chief in preserving the integrity, credibility, and ethical standing of the journal’s scholarly record.