Publication Ethics

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

 We believe that all parties engaged in the paper publication (author, editors, reviewers) are to agree upon the standards of journal and respect the codes.     

 To see our policy towards the publication ethics please click here.

 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 They should reference when they reported or utilized any materials or data verbatim no matter it is published, unpublished, or electronically available.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.