Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
| Post date: 2022/01/24 |
- Website
- Name of Journal
- Peer Review Process
We aim to complete the review process within 4 weeks of the decision to review although occasionally delays do happen and authors should allow at least 6 weeks from submissions before contacting the journal. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to the final decision regarding acceptance.
Guidance for Peer Reviewers
All manuscripts are double-blind reviewed. At Payesh we believe that peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research.
As a reviewer you will be advising the editors, who make the final decision (aided by an editorial committee for all research articles and most analysis articles). We will let you know our decision. Even if we do not accept an article we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it.
All unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents. If we invite you to review an article, please do not discuss it even with a colleague or pass on the article to another reviewer in your own concern.
When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should fill the journal’s reviewing form. You should try to respond to every peer review invitation you receive. If you feel the paper is outside your area of expertise or you are unable to devote the necessary time, please let the editorial office know as soon as possible so that they can invite an alternative reviewer – it as at this stage you may like to nominate an appropriately qualified colleague. And please remember, if an author's manuscript is sitting with reviewers who have not responded to the peer-review request, the author will not get a timely decision.
Please read the Aims and Scope and the Author Instruction with care. Consideration should be given to whether the paper is suitable for the journal it is submitted to. The journals' aims and scope is available on “Journal Information” menu and pages.
You are able to check article similarity through a link provided in your personal reviewing panel. You should inform the editor if you find the article submitted to them is published or under consideration in any other publication.
The essential feature of any review is that it is helpful and constructive and we urge reviewers to be robust but polite when making comments to authors. The Peer reviewers should provide an objective critical evaluation of the paper in the broadest terms practicable. Reviewers need to make a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief on deciding the manuscript. Your report must contain your detailed answers on the journal questions in the reviewing form. If you believe the paper needs revisions to be made before it is acceptable, please make suggestions on how to improve the paper. Likewise, if you feel that a paper is not good enough and has no real prospects of being improved sufficiently to be published you should recommend rejection.
How to become a reviewer:
Payesh (Health Monitor) is currently seeking new reviewers to join our team. For more information and apply send an email to: infopayeshjournal.ir or register through the site.
- Ownership and Management
- Governing Body
acecr.ac.ir-Editorial Office: Arezou Asadi, info
payeshjournal.ir-Editorial Board as follows.
- Editorial team
Abolhasan Nadim (M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D.): Associate member of the Academy of Medical Sciences Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran, Iran - nadim
ams.ac.irHossein Malekafzali (M.D., Ph.D.): Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of public health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran - malekafzali
tums.ac.irKazem Mohammad (M.D., Ph.D.): Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran - mohamadk
tums.ac.irArash Rashidian (M.D., Ph.D.): Department of Health Management and, Economics, School of Public Health, Knowledge Utilization Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences - arashidian
tums.ac.irMohammad Taghi Joghataei (Ph.D.): Department of Anatomical Sciences, School of Medicine, Cellular and Molecular Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences - joghataei.mt
iums.ac.irAmir Mahmoud Harirchi (M.P.H., Ph.D.): University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran - amir.m.harirchi
gmail.comBehrouz Jalili (M.D.): Medical School, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran - jalili
tums.ac.irJila Sadighi (MD, MPH, PhD): Department of Health Promotion, Health Metrics Research Center, Iranian Institute for Health Sciences Research, ACECR, Tehran, Iran - jsadighi
ihsr.ac.irFaranak Farzadi (M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D.): Department of Health Services Management, Health Metrics Research Center, Iranian Institute for Health Sciences Research, ACECR, Tehran, Iran - ffarzadi
ihsr.ac.irGholamreza Garmaroudi (M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D.): Department of Promotion and Health Education, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran - gharmaroudi tums.ac.ir
Mohammad Shariati (M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D.): Family Medicine Department, School of Public Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran - shariati
tums.ac.irFarzaneh Maftoon (M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D.): Department of Population Health, Health Metrics Research Center, Iranian Institute for Health Sciences Research, ACECR, Tehran, Iran - fmaftoon
ihsr.ac.irSepideh Omidvari (M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D.): Cancer Research Center, Cancer Institute of Iran, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran - somidvari
ihsr.ac.irHamid Reza Baradaran (M.D., PhD.,): Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran - baradaran.hr
iums.ac.irSeyed Ali Azin (M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D.): Avicenna Research Institute (ACECR) at Avicenna Research Institute (ACECR), Tehran, Iran - saliazin
gmail.comAfsoon Aeenparast (Ph.D.): Department of Health Services Management, Health Metrics Research Center, Iranian Institute for Health Sciences Research, ACECR, Tehran, Iran - aaeenparast
ihsr.ac.irGhodratollah Shakerinejad (Ph.D.): Medical department, Iranian academic center for education, culture and research (ACECR), Iran - shakerinejad
acecr.ac.irKatayoun Jahangiri (M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D.): Department of Health in Emergencies and Disasters, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran - k.jahangiri
sbmu.ac.irMahmoud Tavousi (Ph.D.): Department of Health promotion, Health Metrics Research Center, Iranian Institute for Health Sciences Research, ACECR, Tehran, Iran - tavousi
acecr.ac.irRamin Mozafari Kermani (Ph.D.): Department of Health promotion, Health Metrics Research Center, Iranian Institute for Health Sciences Research, ACECR, Tehran, Iran - mozafari_ramin
yahoo.comAli Asghar Haeri Mehrizi (M.Sc.): Health Services Management Group, Health Metrics Research Center, Iranian Institute for Health Sciences Research, ACECR, Tehran, Iran - a.haeri
acecr.ac.irMarzieh Araban (Ph.D.): Department of Health Education and Promotion, Public Health School, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical sciences, Ahvaz, Iran - arabanm
ajums.ac.irSeyedeh Somayeh Kazemi (Ph.D.): School of Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Chalus, Iran - somayeh.kazemi7
gmail.comHedyeh Riazi (Ph.D.): Department of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran - h.riazi
sbmu.ac.ir
- Copyright and Licensing
• Authors grant Iranian Institute for Health Sciences Research a license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher.
• Authors also grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its integrity is maintained and its original authors, citation details and publisher are identified.
• The Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International formalizes these and other terms and conditions of publishing articles. Creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
- Author fees
- Process for identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct
- Publication Ethics
COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices
1. Editors
Chief Editors is accountable for everything published in the journal. This means the editors
1.1 strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
1.2 strive to constantly improve their journal;
1.3 have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish;
1.4 champion freedom of expression;
1.5 maintain the integrity of the academic record;
1.6 preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
1.7 always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Best Practice for Editors would include:
Actively seeking the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes
Encouraging and being aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing their journal’s processes in the light of new findings
Supporting initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct
Supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics
Assessing the effects of their journal policies on author and reviewer behavior and revising policies, as required, to encourage responsible behavior and discourage misconduct
Ensuring that any press releases issued by their journal reflect the message of the reported article and put it into context.
2. Readers
2.1 Readers should be informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.
Best practice for editors would include:
Ensuring that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers including statistical review.
Ensuring that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are clearly identified.
Adopting processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting including technical editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists considering developing a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of non-research articles adopting authorship or contributor ship systems that promote good practice (i.e. so that listings accurately reflect who did the work) and discourage misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest authors)
3. Informing readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation
4. Relations with authors
4.1 Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
4.2 Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
4.3 New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.
4.4 A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
4.5 Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions.
4.6 Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
4.7 Editors should provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor following the standards within the relevant field.
Best practice for editors would include:
Reviewing author instructions regularly and providing links to relevant guidelines
Publishing relevant competing interests for all contributors and publishing corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication
Ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests)
Respecting requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are well-reasoned and practicable
Publishing details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct
Publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles
5. Relations with reviewers
5.1 Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
5.2 Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
5.3 Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.
Best practice for editors would include:
Encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects (including animals), inappropriate data manipulation and presentation)
Encouraging reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism
Considering providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications (e.g. links to cited references and bibliographic searches)
Sending reviewers’ comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libelous remarks
Seeking to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal
Encouraging academic institutions to recognize peer review activities as part of the scholarly process
Monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this is of high standard
Developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating this on the basis of reviewer performance
Ceasing to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews
Ensuring that the reviewer database reflects the community for their journal and adding new reviewers as needed
Using a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (e.g. author suggestions, bibliographic databases)
Following the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct
6. Relations with editorial board members
6.1 Editors should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.
Best practice for editors would include:
Having policies in place for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased review
Identifying suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal
Regularly reviewing the composition of the editorial board
Providing clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties, which might include:
Acting as ambassadors for the journal
Supporting and promoting the journal
Seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions
Reviewing submissions to the journal
Accepting commissions to write editorials, reviews and commentaries on papers in their specialist area
Attending and contributing to editorial board meetings
Consulting editorial board members periodically (e.g. once a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenge
7. Relations with Publisher
7.1 The relationship of editors to Publisher and the owner is based firmly on the principle of editorial independence.
7.2 Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from Publisher.
7.3 Editors have a written contract(s) setting out their relationship with Publisher.
7.4 The terms of this contract is in line with the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.
Best practice for editors would include:
Communicating regularly with Publisher
8. Editorial and peer review processes
8.1 Editors should strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely.
8.2 Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.
Best practice for editors would include:
Ensuring that people involved with the editorial process (including themselves) receive adequate training and keep abreast of the latest guidelines, recommendations and evidence about peer review and journal management
Keeping informed about research into peer review and technological advances
Adopting peer review methods best suited for their journal and the research community it serves
Reviewing peer review practices periodically to see if improvement is possible
Referring troubling cases to COPE, especially when questions arise that are not addressed by the COPE flowcharts, or new types of publication misconduct are suspected
Considering the appointment of an ombudsperson to adjudicate in complaints that cannot be resolved internally
9. Quality assurance
9.1 Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.
Best practice for editors would include:
Having systems in place to detect falsified data (e.g. inappropriately manipulated photographic images or plagiarized text) either for routine use or when suspicions are raised
Basing decisions about journal house style on relevant evidence of factors that raise the quality of reporting (e.g. adopting structured abstracts, applying guidance) rather than simply on aesthetic grounds or personal preference
10. Protecting individual data
10.1 Editors must obey laws on confidentiality in their own jurisdiction. Regardless of local statutes, however, they should always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions. It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from people who might recognize themselves or be identified by others (e.g. from case reports or photographs). It may be possible to publish individual information without explicit consent if public interest considerations outweigh possible harms, it is impossible to obtain consent and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.
Best practice for editors would include:
Publishing their policy on publishing individual data (e.g. identifiable personal details or images) and explaining this clearly to authors
Note that consent to take part in research or undergo treatment is not the same as consent to publish personal details, images or quotations.
11. Encouraging ethical research (e.g. research involving humans or animals)
11.1 Editors should endeavor to ensure that research they publish was carried out according to the relevant internationally Declaration of Helsinki for clinical research, and the AERA and BERA guidelines for educational research.
11.2 Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. However, editors should recognize that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.
Best practice for editors would include:
Being prepared to request evidence of ethical research approval and to question authors about ethical aspects (such as how research participant consent was obtained or what methods were employed to minimize animal suffering) if concerns are raised or clarifications are needed
Ensuring that reports of clinical trials cite compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice.
Appointing a journal ethics advisor or panel to advise on specific cases and review journal policies periodically
12. Dealing with possible misconduct
12.1 Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
12.2 Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
12.3 Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable.
12.4 Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate.
12.5 Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.
13. Ensuring the integrity of the academic record
13.1 Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
13.2 Editors should follow the COPE guidelines on retractions.
Best practice for editors would include:
Taking steps to reduce covert redundant publication (e.g. by requiring all clinical trials to be registered)
Ensuring that published material is securely archived (e.g. via online permanent repositories, such as PubMed Central)
Having systems in place to give authors the opportunity to make original research articles freely available
14. Intellectual property
14.1 Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with Publisher to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.
Best practice for editors would include:
Adopting systems for detecting plagiarism (e.g. software, searching for similar titles) in submitted items (either routinely or when suspicions are raised)
Supporting authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism
Being prepared to work with Publisher to defend authors’ rights and pursue offenders (e.g. by requesting retractions or removal of material from websites) irrespective of whether their journal holds the copyright
15. Encouraging debate
15.1 Editors should encourage and be willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in their journal.
15.2 Authors of criticized material should be given the opportunity to respond.
15.3 Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.
Best practice for editors would include:
Being open to research that challenges previous work published in the journal
16. Complaints
16.1 Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE
16.2 Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart on complaints.
17. Commercial considerations
17.1 Journals should have policies and systems in place to ensure that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions (e.g. advertising departments should operate independently from editorial departments).
17.2 Editors should have declared policies on advertising in relation to the content of the journal and on processes for publishing sponsored supplements.
17.3 Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction needs to be included in which case it should be clearly identified.
Best practice for editors would include:
Publishing a general description of their journal’s income sources (e.g. the proportions received from display advertising, reprint sales, sponsored supplements, page charges, etc.)
Ensuring that the peer review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal
Ensuring that items in sponsored supplements are accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and decisions about such supplements are not influenced by commercial considerations
18. Conflicts of interest
18.1 Editors should use ICMJE form and procedure for managing the conflicts of interest issues.
18.2 Journals should have a declared process for handling submissions from the editors, employees or members of the editorial board to ensure unbiased review.
Plagiarism
All authors are strongly recommended to check their manuscripts content before its submission to the journal for publication. All submitted papers to the journal will be checked against Plagiarism upon receiving and also before publishing. If the Reviewers, Editor-in-Chief, Readers or Editorial Staffs suspect or notice any types of plagiarism at any stage of publication process, the manuscript will be rejected and all authors including the corresponding author will be notified then. Self-plagiarism is also considered & managed accordingly.
- Publishing schedule
- Access
All journal papers are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source.
- Archiving
Payesh is archived now in the following repositories:
-The Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature - CINAHL
-Directory of Open Access Journals - DOAJ
-Islamic World Science Citation Database - ISC
-Scientific Information Database-SID
-Magiran
-Google Scholar
- Revenue Sources
- Advertising
- Direct Marketing
View: 976 Time(s) | Print: 158 Time(s) | Email: 0 Time(s) |
0 Comment(s)