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). This journal uses CC BY-NC 4.0 licensing for published articles and No APC is charged. 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

The Iranian Journal of Numerical Analysis and Optimization (IJNAO) uses a single-blind peer review process in which the reviewers’ identities remain confidential, while authors’ names are visible to reviewers. All submissions undergo an initial editorial screening, followed by evaluation from at least two external expert reviewers.

Reviewer Selection:
Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in numerical analysis, optimization, and related fields. To ensure an impartial review process, the journal strictly avoids assigning reviewers who have collaborated with any of the authors within the last three years or have any other conflict of interest. All invited reviewers must explicitly confirm the absence of conflicts before accepting the review.

Review Timeline:
The standard review period at IJNAO is 4–6 weeks. Reviewers are kindly asked to submit their reports within this timeframe. If additional time is needed, the journal may extend the period and will keep authors informed of any delays.

Reviewer Responsibilities and Conduct:
Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations that assist the authors and editors in improving the manuscript’s quality. All review materials must be treated as confidential.

Reviewer Misconduct:
IJNAO maintains zero tolerance for unethical reviewing practices, including—but not limited to—fabricated reviewer identities, fraudulent reviews, unprofessional comments, or unauthorized sharing of manuscripts. Any suspected misconduct will be investigated according to COPE guidelines. Reviewers found to have violated ethical standards will be permanently removed from the reviewer database, and appropriate corrective actions will be taken.

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 must include a Data Availability Statement at submission. Where possible, data and code supporting the results must be deposited in a public repository (Zenodo, Figshare, institutional repo or ...) and a link or DOI provided. If data cannot be shared, authors must state the reason for example privacy or legal restrictions.

Plagiarism-checking policy

All submitted manuscripts are screened for overlap using iThenticate at initial submission; manuscripts with more than 20% will be returned or rejected.

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.

• Misconduct investigations — If suspected misconduct is reported, the Editor-in-Chief will open an investigation following COPE flowcharts. The steps include:

  (1) initial assessment

  (2) contacting authors or institutions for explanation

  (3) independent expert review if needed

  (4) actions (correction, retraction, expression of concern).

  All outcomes will be publicly recorded on the article’s page. (link to COPE flowcharts)

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 Disclosure: All authors are required to submit a Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure form at the time of submission. Editors and reviewers must withdraw from the evaluation process if any potential conflict of interest exists. All disclosed conflicts will be formally documented and recorded. Click here to download

• Authorship criteria: Authors must meet the journal’s authorship criteria (substantial contributions to conception or design, drafting or revising, final approval, and accountability). On submission the corresponding author must supply a short author contribution statement (who did what) and ORCID iDs for all authors.

Post-Publication Corrections and Retractions

IJNAO provides a platform for post-publication discussions and corrections. Corrections or retractions may be issued when significant errors, ethical breaches, or concerns about the validity of the research are identified. Decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the Editorial Board and the Ethics Committee. All correction and retraction notices will be permanently linked to the original article and will clearly state the reasons for the action.

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.