This journal complies with COPE rules.
Ethical Charter for Authors
Originality،The article submitted to theInternational Journal of Iranian Heritage Studies must be new and must not have been submitted simultaneously in other domestic or foreign publications in Persian or English, or all or part of it has already been published.
The originality and origin of the article must be proven to the members of the editorial board. Therefore, articles extracted from master's theses and doctoral dissertations should send a copy of the defense session or a letter from the university approving the research proposal via the complementary files section. In the case of articles extracted from research projects, the signed contract with the relevant organization or a letter of agreement to conduct research in the organization should be sent. For articles that are extracted from the researcher's independent research projects, either a letter of consent from the relevant organization to conduct research in that organization or a certificate from two experts who participated in that research, stating the accuracy of the research. Should be attached. Otherwise, the author must fully explain the implementation process and the reasons for conducting the research via a report that to be decided in the editorial board meeting.
The article should specify the origin and authenticity of each used data set. If proprietary datasets have been used elsewhere by this or another author, the article should state whether these other works have been published or not.
Authors should not submit articles that have already been submitted to this journal, have been evaluated and have been rejected by the editor after evaluation. If the original version has already been rejected and the author wishes to submit a revised version of the article for reviewing, the justification for resubmitting the article must be clearly stated by the author to the editor of the journal. Only under certain circumstances is it permissible to resubmit the article a second time.
Scientific theft (plagiarism)
Submission of the article in theInternational Journal of Iranian Heritage Studies system of the police force will be notified by sending an email to all authors of the article; obviously, the inclusion of the authors’ name in the article indicates their main role in compiling the article. If the authors of the article did not play a role in compiling the article and their names have been misused, they need to notify this immediately via email. All authors are responsible for the originality of the work. The journal reserves the right to evaluate plagiarism cases. Plagiarism comes in many forms, including:
a. Submit another article in your own name.
b. Include names of authors and researchers who have not played a role in the article.
c. Copy or duplicate significant portions of another article (even if the copied article belongs to one of the authors of the new article).
d. Design the results of other people's research in your own name.
e. Repeated publication of an article by a single author in several journals.
f. Expressing incorrect results contrary to scientific findings or distorting research results.
g. Use of invalid data or manipulation of research data.
The cases of plagiarism are investigated by the officials of the journal and in order to protect the credibility and efforts of other researchers, without any tolerance or waiver, considering the amount of plagiarism, legal action is taken as follows:
Conflict of interest
The corresponding author should state the sources of financial support for the project in the text of the article and then send the article. Any of the benefits mentioned should be published with the article. If there is any doubt about the type of situation that represents a conflict, it should be clarified, and any case of conflict of interest should be shared with the secretariat of the publication or the editor.
When submitting an article to the journal, the corresponding author has the opportunity to nominate a potential reviewer for the article. Authors should avoid any potential conflict of interest or manifestation in the selection of potential reviewer. Conflicts of interest of this kind apply not only to the corresponding author but also to the co-authors in the article.
Examples of possible conflicts of interest include:
1) One of the authors is in the same institution or organization as the editor or reviewer is;
2) One of the authors is a member of the thesis committee of the editor or reviewer or vice versa;
3) One of the authors and the editor or reviewer are currently co-authors of another article or have been co-authors of an article for the past two years.
Authors should not introduce people who they know have read the previous version of the article and made suggestion; because such knowledge automatically violates the process of blind review of the article.
Two-way blind peer review
The journal follows a two-way blind peer review process in which authors do not know the reviewer, and vice versa. Authors should respect the confidentiality of the review process and not reveal their identities to the reviewers, and vice versa. For example, the article should not contain any information subject to self-disclosure, so that the reviewer can identify the author.
Authors should not publish their submissions (including original articles and drafts) on websites; because on websites, authors can be easily identified by the reviewers.
Authors should not introduce people as editors or reviewers who know they have already read an article or previous version and made suggestions; because this knowledge or awareness automatically violates the process of blind peer review process.
The authors are ultimately responsible for the content of the entire article submitted to the journal. The authors are committed to providing an accurate overview of the research as well as an objective discussion of the importance of the research.
Authors should report their findings in full and should not delete data that is relevant to the text or structure of the research questions. Results should be reported regardless of whether they support or contradict the expected outcomes. Authors should be especially careful in presenting properties or characteristics related to their research or findings and interpreting them. The basic assumptions, theories, methods, indicators, and research designs related to the findings and interpretations of their work should be stated.
The paper should contain sufficient details and resources so that other researchers can access the same data set to repeat the research.
If a writer discovers a significant mistake or negligence in his or her work, she or he is committed to informing the editor of the journal immediately and to cooperate in reviewing or correcting the article. If the author or publisher finds out by a third party or entity that the published work is in serious error, the author is committed to promptly reviewing or correcting the article or providing evidence to the editor that the original article is correct.
All authors mentioned in the article should have serious assistance and cooperation in research work and be accountable for the results. The credibility and privilege of writing should be shared in proportion to the contributions of the authors to various parts of the article. Authors must assume responsibility and credibility for the work, which includes the credibility of writing or authorship only for the work they have done in practice or the work they have contributed to.
Authors should typically list the student's name as the main co-author in articles by multiple authors, largely taken from the student's thesis or dissertation.
The corresponding author who submits the article to the journal must send a copy or draft of the article to all co-authors and obtain their consent to submit the article to the journal and publish it.
The authors are responsible for safeguarding the privacy, human dignity, well-being and freedom of human rights of the research participants. Articles dealing with human issues (field studies, simulations, interviews) must comply with the requirements of the Human Rights Code at the author's university.
Timeliness and speed of action
Authors should act quickly and appropriately in revising and correcting articles. If an author is unable to act within the specified time limit (maximum one month), she / he should contact the editor as soon as possible to determine the length of time or cancel the reviewing process.
Ethical Charter for Editors
Editors must maintain the independence of their writing and work to ensure that writers have the freedom to write. It is the responsibility of the editors to accept or reject articles. During the normal process, this requires the opinion and advice of the reviewers; however, articles that the editors believe are completely inappropriate may be rejected without review by the reviewers.
Editors must secretly and constructively increase their position rating in a constructive, non-biased manner. Editors are responsible for judging articles solely in terms of academic competence. Editors must act without personal or ideological bias or resentment.
Conflict of interest
Editors should avoid any action that increases conflicts of interest or unreasonable prestige. For example:
Two-way blind peer review
The journal follows a two-way blind peer review process in which the authors do not know the reviewers, and vice versa. Where journal articles do not appear to have been subject to blind peer review process, the review standard should be clearly stated.
The editors and their editorial board should not disclose information about the article to anyone other than the reviewers and authors. Administrative and formal procedures should be established to maintain the confidentiality of the review process. Editors are expected to ensure the confidentiality of the two-way blind peer review process and the non-disclosure of information that may reveal the authors' identities to the reviewers or vice versa. The reviewers’ anonymity can only be violated if the editors obtain permission from the reviewers to reveal their identities.
Editors must ensure that their editorial staff complies with this practice. The unpublished part of the submitted article should not be used in an editor's personal research without the written consent of the author. Confidential information or ideas obtained through the review of articles should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
Quality of assessment
Typically, two reviewers are invited to comment on an article. The editor should review and evaluate all evaluations in terms of quality on a daily basis. In rare cases, the editor may edit a reviewed article before submitting it to the author (for example, to remove a phrase that reveals the identity of the reviewers) or does not send the reviewed article to the author if it is not constructive and appropriate. Review quality ratings and other performance characteristics should be evaluated periodically by the editor to ensure optimal performance of the journal. These ratings and privileges should also help in making decisions about the re-appointment of the jury and ongoing requests for being reviewers. Reviewers’ personal performance data should be available to editors and kept confidential.
Editors must proceed to the initial review and selection of reviewers within the deadline (maximum one week after receiving the article) to ensure timely review of all articles and prompt response to authors' requests for reviewing status.
Editors are responsible for explaining editorial decisions to authors regarding their article. Editors should write high-quality letters that are a combination of the reviewers’ recommendations and other additional suggestions for the author. Editors should not attach the result of the decision in the form of a letter, without providing an explanation, to a set of recommendations and suggestions of the reviewers.
When the editor receives convincing evidence from the reviewer that the concept or result of an unpublished article is incorrect, he or she must promptly inform the author. If similar evidence is presented about a published article, the editor should promptly publish an amendment, return of the previous item, relevant statement, or other relevant notes as appropriate.
The ultimate authority and responsibility of the journal should be with the editor. The editor should respect the organization of the journal (including readers, writers, reviewers, editors, editorial staff and publishers) and strive to ensure the integrity and honesty of the journal content and continuously improve its quality. The editor must select the members of the editorial team, including the editorial evaluation board; determine the rights and responsibilities of these individuals and regularly evaluate their performance.
The editor should outline the performance indicators of the journal. The journal should publish annual audits of acceptance rates, publication intervals, percentage of articles submitted for external review and evaluation, and other performance data. Performance indicators should be used to evaluate developments in the review and evaluation of articles and publishing processes, thereby improving the performance of the journal.
Ethical Charter for Reviewers
Review is a professional activity for magazines that provides value to the entire profession and should be encouraged. Researchers who submit papers to the journal are generally expected to reciprocally accept the journal's invitation to review the articles.
The right to refuse and rejection
It is necessary to refuse a request to review an article according to the time or situation. For example, a reviewer who feels inadequate enough to review a research paper should refuse to evaluate the paper. Reviewers should refrain from evaluating the article if there is a potential conflict of interest. If reviewers are asked to evaluate an article that has already been reviewed and evaluated, they should inform the editor of the details of the initial evaluation, unless it is clear that they are considering a re-evaluation request.
Two-way blind peer review
The journal has a two-way blind peer review process. Reviewers should refrain from reviewing articles that have already provided their written submissions to the author in the original version. If the reviewer knows the identity of the author or co-author, she or he will naturally be refused a review of the article. Reviewers are also responsible for avoiding writing, saying, or doing anything that could reveal their identity to the author.
Conflict of interest
Normally, reviewers should refrain from evaluating articles that they consider to be in conflict of interest, whether common, financial, organizational or personal, or any other affiliation with the companies, entities or individuals associated with the articles. Reviewers who may have a conflict of interest in a particular article should identify that conflict to the editor so that the editor can determine the appropriate level of participation. An example of this is a situation where the reviewer has a similar article under review in the same or another journal or a similar research project being completed. Keep in mind that under the blind peer review process, since the reviewers do not know the authors, it is unlikely that the reviewers will be aware of the conflicting interests of the authors; therefore, they are not limited by these contradictions. If the reviewers become aware of such contradictions, they should inform the editor of the journal.
Reviewers must evaluate articles objectively, impartially or fairly and professionally. Reviewers should avoid personal bias in their recommendations and judgments.
Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the review process. It is important to recognize that this article is confidential. The reviewers should not discuss the article with anyone other than the editor of the magazine, nor should they share the information of the article with anyone without permission. If reviewers suspect a breach, they should keep the editor confidential and should not share their concerns with other sections until the journal is officially announced.
In reviewing the article and making recommendations for the author(s), the reviewers should always keep in mind that review is influential in scientific judgment. The reviewers should be honest with the author(s) based on their concerns about the article. Reviewers must adequately explain and support their scientific judgment; it means that they must provide the editor with sufficient detail and information to justify their advice to the author. The reviewers should not be bipolar, for example, on the one hand have very friendly and sincere reviews of the author and on the other hand very negative reviews in a private meeting with the editor.
Reviewers must act quickly in their reviews and judgments. If the reviewer is unable to act within the stipulated time limit (maximum one month), she / he should contact the editor as soon as possible to determine the further duration or to select a new reviewer.