The Iranian Journal of Numerical Analysis and Optimization (IJNAO) is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) which adheres to the highest standards of ethical conduct in publishing, in line with the guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Our journal requires that all editors, reviewers, and authors uphold these ethical standards throughout the publication process.

Journal's Membership Link

FUM Policy on AI and LLMs

In line with COPE's position, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (FUM) allows authors to use AI and Large Language Models (LLMs) only to assist with initial drafts, specifically for sections like "Materials and Methods." However, AI tools do not qualify for authorship, and authors remain fully accountable for the content of their work. The use of such tools must be disclosed, and all final responsibility for the manuscript lies with the authors.

Peer Review Process

IJNAO follows a single-blind peer review process, where the reviewers remain anonymous, but the authors’ identities are known to the reviewers. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two qualified reviewers who are experts in the field. Reviewers are selected based on their relevant expertise, and they are required to provide objective, fair, and constructive feedback within the stipulated timeline. The peer-review process is overseen by the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision on manuscript acceptance based on the reviewers’ feedback, the manuscript’s scientific quality, and its relevance to the journal’s focus.

Transparency in Peer Review

The journal ensures that all manuscripts are evaluated without regard to nationality, gender, or institutional affiliations. IJNAO provides detailed reviewer feedback to authors and maintains clear communication with authors about the status of their manuscript throughout the review process.

Data Availability Statement

Authors are expected to provide a data availability statement upon submission. All data necessary to replicate the findings reported in a manuscript should be made available upon request. Authors are encouraged to store their data in publicly accessible repositories where possible, ensuring that it is available for future research.

Ethical Approval and Consent

For research involving human or animal subjects, authors must provide evidence of ethical approval from relevant institutions. Authors are required to include statements regarding informed consent from participants where applicable. Failure to obtain ethical approval or consent may lead to manuscript rejection.

Editor Responsibilities

• Publication Decisions: The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for making final decisions on submitted manuscripts. Manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content and scientific merit, with guidance from the peer reviewers and legal guidelines regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
• Impartiality: Editorial decisions are based solely on the manuscript’s importance to the field, quality of research, and relevance to the journal’s scope. Editors ensure that all manuscripts are treated fairly, without bias toward the authors' identity or affiliations.
• Confidentiality: Editors ensure the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts. They are not to disclose any information about a manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, or other editorial staff.
• Handling Misconduct: If ethical concerns are raised regarding a submitted manuscript, the editor will initiate an investigation following COPE guidelines. Actions may include correction, retraction, or editorial note, depending on the findings.

Reviewer Responsibilities

• Objective Reviews: Reviewers are expected to provide fair, unbiased, and timely reviews. They must avoid personal criticism and ensure that their comments are constructive.
• Confidentiality: All review processes are confidential. Reviewers are not permitted to discuss the manuscript with others without explicit permission from the Editor-in-Chief.
• Ethical Recommendation: Based on reports from two reviewers, IJNAO requires that reviewers refrain from recommending that authors cite their own articles unless there is a clear scientific justification. If such a recommendation is necessary, the reviewer must provide a separate letter to the editor explaining the reasoning.

Author Responsibilities

• Originality and Plagiarism: Manuscripts submitted to IJNAO must be original works. Authors are responsible for ensuring their work is free from plagiarism, falsification, and improper citation practices.
• Data Accuracy: Authors must ensure that their findings are accurately reported. Raw data may be requested during the review process and should be made available for validation.
• Conflict of Interest: Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence the interpretation of their findings.
• Ethical Compliance: Authors are expected to confirm that their research complies with ethical standards, including obtaining necessary approvals for research involving human or animal subjects.

Post-Publication Corrections and Retractions

IJNAO provides a platform for post-publication discussions and corrections. If any significant errors are discovered after publication, authors are required to collaborate with the editorial team to correct or retract the article. The journal may issue corrections, retractions, or editorial notes based on the severity of the issue.

Violations and Consequences

The Editorial Board of IJNAO actively monitors for violations of publication ethics, including plagiarism, data fabrication, and improper authorship. If ethical violations are discovered during the review process, the manuscript will be rejected. For published papers, ethical violations will lead to a retraction and public notification. Authors involved in misconduct may be blacklisted from future submissions to the journal.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by contacting the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals will be reviewed by a separate editor, and if necessary, the manuscript may be sent for a new round of peer review. Complaints regarding any aspect of the journal can be addressed to ijnao@um.ac.ir, and will be acknowledged within three working days.