Publication Ethics and the Statement of Malpractice:
Publication and Authorship:
1. All research papers are subject to editorial review, double blind peer-review process by at least two scientific experts (reviewers) selected by the editor-in-chief, the editorial board, or both.
2. Manuscripts are evaluated in review based on the originality, technical quality, clarity of presentation, importance to the field and the style of English writing.
3. Manuscripts are accepted, sent for revision, or rejected based on the reviewers’ evaluation and are decision of the respective editorial committee.
4. Revised manuscripts are presented to the respective editorial committee, and the editorial board makes the final decision based on the committee’s suggestions.
5. Rejected articles are archived in the journal database.
6. Plagiarism is strictly followed by the researchers in the university and cross-reference check is completed before acceptance.
1. Authors should certify the originality of their manuscripts at the time of submission. They should also certify that the submitted manuscript is nowhere under publication or consideration for publication.
2. Correction of mistakes and revisions following the reviewer’s comments should be forwarded to the managing editor of the journal within three days of notification.
3. Acknowledgements and the affiliations of all the authors should be given in the manuscript, and it should be declared if any conflict of interest exits among the authors or the organizations.
4. Reporting errors in the previously published work is highly appreciated as it helps to improve the quality of the papers in the field.
5. The authors have no right to withdraw their articles when the review process has been completed.
1. Privacy and secrecy of the manuscripts should be maintained at all costs. Although all the submitted manuscripts are double blind reviewed, their original contents should be preserved and focused as a top priority.
2. Peer-review process should be completed as soon as possible, and the comments on the originality of the papers should be forwarded to the editor in chief irrespective of the reviewer’s suggestions regarding revision, acceptance, and rejection. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments in 500 to 1000 words.
3. Suggestions by the reviewers identifying relevant published work should be reported to the authors and the editors.
4. Plagiarism including overlap of the manuscript with other published articles should be reported, so that the editorial board can make a solid decision regarding manuscripts acceptance or rejection.
1. All responsible editors (editor in chief, managing editor, and heads of the editorial committees) have full authority to reject/accept any article. They are also responsible for the overall quality of the publication.
2. Editors should always propose and implement strategies to improve the quality of the publication.
3. Quality and integrity of the author’s academic record should be considered before considering any article.
4. Originality and quality of the paper, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the publication's scope should be the only sole characteristics for accepting or rejecting any manuscript.
5. Finalized decisions should not be overturned without any serious reason.
6. Anonymity of reviewers and authors should be preserved until the final decision is made regarding the manuscript.
7. Editors should find out a solution for ethical issues and problems including conflict of authors regarding their published or unpublished papers.
8. Rejections should not be made based on suspicions.
9. Conflict of interest among editorial members, authors, and reviewers should be resolved properly according to the COPE guidelines.
1. Editorial members, reviewers, and authors should stringently follow the rules defined by COPE.
2. An article may be withdrawn during its first phase of editorial review process. However, when the article’s review process is underway, withdrawal is prohibited and the editorial board keeps the right to decide about the imposition of some sort of a penalty for the author(s).
3. Major changes to the accepted article are only allowed on the basis of solid reasons forwarded to the editor.
4. All editorial members and authors must be willing to publish any kind of corrections honestly and completely.
5. Publication ethics should be stringently followed by the authors of the manuscripts. Plagiarism or presentation of fraudulent data may enlist authors as violators of COPE rules. As such, they are black listed and their names will be forwarded to COPE upon the decision of the editorial board.
Iranian Journal of Numerical Analysis and Optimization (IJNAO) is not a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) at present. However, the journal is committed to follow the standards and guidelines set out by COPE. Moreover, IJNAO has applied for COPE membership.
The following are the useful links for our authors, reviewers, and editors:
COPE Flow-Charts (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts)
International standards for editors and authors (http://publicationethics.org/international-standards-editors-and-authors)