Archives of Razi Institute Journal, as a member of Negah journals, owned by Razi Vaccine & Serum Research Institute, & co-published by Negah Scientific Publisher, is committed to applying the ethics of publication, based on the COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices. You may find the Journal’s code of publication ethics here.
Introduction:
The Archives of the Razi Institute Journal aims to be a primary channel for data communication, the sharing of ideas, and the dissemination of information to the scientific research community. We must adhere to a specific code of ethics, and it is advisable to follow it strictly, as this will significantly enhance the quality of the published works. This current code of ethics focuses on providing guidance on the proper behavior of editors, authors, and reviewers in the scientific publication process.
Authors and Co-authors
Authors
Archives of Razi Institute Journal is committed to following and applying “International Standards for Authors” of the Committee on Publication Ethics in designing and leading the Journal’s reviewing and publishing process and dealing with their issues. You can find the International Standards for Authors here. Authors should read the standard and apply it to their works completely.
Authors submitting a paper confirm that they understand that the manuscript has been read and approved by all authors and that all authors agree to the submission of the manuscript to the Journal. Archives of Razi Institute Journal adheres to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations that authorship be based on the following four criteria:
It is a requirement that all authors have been accredited as appropriate upon submission of the manuscript. Contributors who do not qualify as authors should be mentioned under Acknowledgements.
In addition, authors are advised to follow the following code of ethics strictly. Submit manuscripts, which are their original works or of the work they are associated with during their tenure.
Submitted manuscripts should contain original and new results, data, and their ideas which are not been submitted for publication to other publications or published elsewhere. Fabrication of data and results, intellectual property theft, and plagiarism are highly unacceptable and go beyond the ethics of an author. Information obtained via various media should be provided in the manuscript only with prior permission from the owner of the source of information or data.
They should properly cite the work they are referring to; authors are advised to cross-check the reference before submitting their manuscript.
They may not promote their works in any form via any media to get them published. No article should have an author who is not directly involved in the work for any reason.
Authors and co-authors are requested to review and ensure the accuracy and validity of all the results before submission. Any potential conflict of interest should be disclosed to the editor in advance. The Creative Commons licensing policy of publication binds authors.
All authors are requested to submit the copyright transfer form without failure once they receive the acceptance of their article for publication.
Editors
Archives of Razi Institute Journal is committed to following and applying “International Standards for Editors” of the Committee on Publication Ethics in designing and leading the Journal’s reviewing and publishing process and dealing with their issues. You can find the International Standards for Editors here. The Journal's editors should thoroughly read the standard and apply it to their editorial tasks and procedures.
The term "editor" is a common term used to refer to the Chief Editor of any journal, Content Editor, Section Editor (an expert who manages the reviewing process in a subject-centered section), and Editorial Board members. Editors of the Archives of Razi Institute Journal are expected to have full responsibility for editorial and technical decisions of the Journal. Any editor or office bearer should not intervene or comment on any editorial decisions taken on any manuscript by the concerned editor. Editors are requested to give unbiased consideration to the articles submitted. Archives of Razi Institute Journal aims for rapid publication; editors are advised to process the manuscripts promptly and diligently.
Editors are the sole responsible persons for the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript, it may be subjected to peer review but the final decision is bound to the concerned editor.
Any decision taken or matter of concern about a submitted article should not be revealed to anyone by an editor. If one of the editor is willing to publish an article the article should be processed by another editor.
Editor should refrain from using the information, data, theories, or interpretations of any submitted manuscript in her/his own work until that manuscript is in press.
Reviewers
Reviewers are the main members contributing for the benefit of the Journal, being a peer reviewed (double-blind review) Journal they are insisted not to disclose their identity in any form.
A reviewer should immediately decline to review an article submitted if he/she feels that the article is technically unqualified or if the timely review cannot be done by him/her or if the article has a conflict of interest.
All submissions should be treated as confidential, editorial approval might be given for any outside person’s advice received.
No reviewer should pass on the article submitted to him/her for review to another reviewer in his own concern, it should be declined immediately.
Reviewers being the base of the whole quality process should ensure that the articles published should be of high quality and original work. He may inform the editor if he finds the article submitted to him for review is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge.
There are no hard and fast rules to analysis an article, this can be done on case-to-case basis considering the worthiness, quality, and originality of the article submitted.
In general, cases the following may be checked in a review
A reviewer’s comment decides the acceptance or rejection of an article and they are one major element in a peer review process. All our reviewers are requested to go through the articles submitted to them for review in detail and give their review comments without any bias, which will increase the quality of our journals.
Breach of Code
Being an association dedicated for the researcher fraternity, we all should ensure that the code of ethics formed is followed in all possible ways. Being a not-for-profit body it is the internal responsibility of a person who should have to follow the codes; there is no enforcement to follow.
Archives of Razi Institute Journal committee members are entitled to take action against an individual if they are found to be violating the code.
COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts
Archives of Razi Institute Journal is committed to follow and apply guidelines and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics in its reviewing and publishing process and issues. For more information, please click here.
...
COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices
Chief Editors are 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
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:
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:
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:
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:
7.1 The relationship of editors to Negah 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 Negah Publisher.
7.3 Editors have a written contract(s) setting out their relationship with Negah 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:
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:
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:
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:
Note that consent to take part in research or undergo treatment is not the same as consent to publish personal details, images or quotations.
Archives of Razi Institute Journal Encouraging ethical research (e.g. research involving humans or animals)
Best practice for editors would include:
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.
13.1 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:
14.1 Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with Negah Publisher to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.
Best practice for editors would include:
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:
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.
17.1 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:
18.1 Editors should use the ICMJE form and procedure for managing 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.
(Based on recommendations on publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals, prepared by the WAME Publication Ethics Committee)
Plagiarism is the use of others' published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source. The intent and effect of plagiarism is to mislead the reader as to the contributions of the plagiarizer. This applies whether the ideas or words are taken from abstracts, research grant applications, Institutional Review Board applications, or unpublished or published manuscripts in any publication format (print or electronic).
Self-plagiarism refers to the practice of an author using portions of their previous writings on the same topic in another of their publications, without specifically citing it formally in quotes. This practice is widespread and sometimes unintentional, as there are only so many ways to say the same thing on many occasions, particularly when writing the Methods section of an article. Although this usually violates the copyright that has been assigned to the publisher, there is no consensus as to whether this is a form of scientific misconduct, or how many of one's own words one can use before it is truly "plagiarism." Probably for this reason self-plagiarism is not regarded in the same light as plagiarism of the ideas and words of other individuals.
Plagiarism Policy
All articles submitted will be checked using the iThenticate plagiarism detection software and Samim Noor and Hamtajoo, Farsi plagiarism detection software (for Persian Papers).
A specific process is followed to manage a case of plagiarism. Negah Journals follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s guidelines presented in the following flowcharts:
For other plagiarism issues and scientific misconduct, Negah journals apply the COPE Guidance on Plagiarism Cases.
Types of Plagiarism
We detect and consider the following types of plagiarism in the journal and prevent them to be used:
Full Plagiarism: Previously published content without any changes to the text, idea, and grammar is considered as full plagiarism. It involves presenting exact text from a source as one’s own.
Partial Plagiarism: If content is a mixture from multiple different sources, where the author has extensively rephrased text, then it is known as partial plagiarism.
Self-Plagiarism: When an author reuses complete or portions of their pre-published research, then it is known as self-plagiarism. Complete self-plagiarism is a case when an author republishes their own previously published work in a new journal. (Read the COPE guidelines on text recycling)
Self-plagiarism or Text Recycling Guidelines
(Based on COPE's guideline: Text recycling guidelines for editors)
Self-plagiarism, also referred to as ‘text recycling’, is a topical issue and is currently generating much discussion among editors. Opinions are divided as to how much text overlap with an author’s own previous publications is acceptable, and editors often find it hard to judge when action is required.
How to deal with text recycling
Introduction
These guidelines are intended to guide editors in dealing with cases of text recycling. Text recycling, also known as self-plagiarism, is when sections of the same text appear in more than one of an author’s own publications.
Editors should consider each case of text recycling on an individual basis as the most appropriate course of action will depend on a number of factors.
When should action be considered?
Text recycling can take many forms, and editors should consider which parts of the text have been recycled.
When significant overlap is identified between two or more articles, editors should consider taking action. Several factors may need to be taken into account when deciding whether the overlap is considered significant.
Text recycling in a submitted manuscript
Text recycling may be identified in a submitted article by editors or reviewers, or by the use of plagiarism detection software, e.g. CrossCheck. Editors should consider the extent of the overlap when deciding how to act.
Text recycling in a published article
If text recycling is discovered in a published article, it may be necessary to publish a correction to, or retraction of, the original article. This decision will depend on the degree and nature of the overlap, and several factors will need to be considered. As for text recycling in a submitted manuscript, editors should handle cases of overlap in data according to the COPE flowchart for dealing with suspected redundant publication in a published article.
Journal editors should consider publishing a correction article when:
The correction should amend the literature by adding the missing citation and clarifying what is new in the subsequent publication versus the original publication.
Journal editors should consider publishing a retraction article when:
The retraction should be issued in line with the COPE retraction guidelines.
How far back should this be applied?
Attitudes towards text recycling have changed over the past decade. Editors should consider this when deciding how to deal with individual cases of text recycling in published articles. Editors should judge each case in line with accepted practice at the time of publication.
In general, where overlap does not involve duplication of results, editors are advised to consider taking no corrective action for cases where the text recycling occurred earlier than 2004. Editors may wish to take corrective action in the case of duplication of data prior to this date and should follow the COPE flowchart for dealing with suspected redundant publication in a published article.
Opinion, Review and Commentary articles
Non-research article types such as Opinion, Review and Commentary articles should in principle adhere to the same guidelines as research articles. Due to the critical and opinion-based nature of some non-research article types, action should be considered when text is recycled from an earlier publication without any further novel development of previously published opinions or ideas or when they are presented as novel without any reference to previous publications.
Chatbots (such as ChatGPT) should not be mentioned as authors because they are unable to take responsibility for the accuracy, verification, and originality of the work, which are essential for authorship. Therefore, humans are responsible for any content that uses AI-assisted technologies.
Authors should carefully review and edit results generated by AI because AI may provide output that appears reliable but is inaccurate, incomplete, or distorted. They should also ensure that no plagiarism has occurred in their article, either in the text or in the AI-generated images.
Acknowledge your AI usage on your references page or in another location specified by your instructor. Your acknowledgement should include the following:
Use and adapt this statement to acknowledge your use of generative AI tools:
I acknowledge the use of [name of AI tool(s) and link(s)] to [describe why or how you used generative AI]. I used the following prompt: [list of prompts]. The output from these prompts was used to [explain use].
Example 1:
I acknowledge the use of Grammarly (https://www.grammarly.com/) to improve the organization and academic tone of my essay. The output was used to revise my draft essay. I used the suggestions to reorder some content and break up other sections of text to improve organization and the overall tone of the essay.
Example 2:
I acknowledge the use of ChatGPT (https://chatgpt.com/share/685061c9-abc4-8009-b0a0-63b08142e6c2) to revise the flow and transitions between paragraphs of my essay. I used the following prompts:
General recommendations for citing AI-generated content and using AI tools to create citations:
Vancover Style
|
Material Type |
Reference List Example (based on Citing Medicine 2nd edition) |
EndNote (Citing Medicine) Instructions |
|
Software |
1. OpenAI. ChatGPT [Computer Software] 2023 [Cited 2023 Feb 15]. Available from: https://chat.openai.com. |
If using EndNote select: |
Please note: The information in this guide is subject to change as guidance on referencing AI tools continues to evolve.
This Generative AI referencing sample has been adapted from Citing Medicine: the NLM Style Guide using the examples for citing Computer Programs, Databases, and Datasets.