Publication Ethics

Statement on Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice

This statement is based on COPE’s Code of Conduct an internationally accepted Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors that explains ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article for journals, i.e.: 

the author, 
the Editor in Chief, 
the peer-reviewers 
and the publisher.

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. In order to publish high-quality scientific resources, public trust in findings, and credit for people's ideas, the ethical standards for publication are followed:

Duties of Editors

The chief role of an editor is to enhance the scholarship atmosphere in the field of research related the scope of the journal. Editors are responsible for the content of the journal and ensure that the submitted manuscripts are in line with the aim, scope and the related policies of the journal. The editors in any journal work closely with the journal’s publishing staff, reviewers, and even authors to promote the journal. The are expected to encourage new author to publish their articles and promote a sense of expertise among the researchers, which could lead to setting up a panel of expert reviewers. Since editors, specifically editors-in-chief, are in charge of selecting the Editorial Board, they offer their feedback to the reviewers and check the relevance and the quality of the constructive comments provided to the researchers. Editors of a journal deliver regular reports on the journal’s performance and suggest constructive strategies for the development and important income sources of journal.

The following procedure are directly observed by the editor-in-chief:

Article Publication Decision: Possible decisions based on the single blind peer review are: accept as is, minor revision, major revision, or reject.
Honesty and Fair Play: Editors will not give any consideration on authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political context, movements and rituals.
Confidentiality: They must not disclose any information about submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and the publisher.
Disclosure and Conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials are not allowed in submitted manuscript without the express written consent of the author.
Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations

Duties of Reviewers

Reviewers evaluate article, based on the previously defined criteria of the journal, provide feedback on the papers, and make a major contribution to the outcome. However, it should be noted that the journal editor is responsible for the final decision on the manuscript publication. Reviewers can improve the journal quality by providing rigorous comments, identifying invalid research and preventing ethical breaches. The journal reviewers could foster a strong relationship with the peers and the affiliated journals in the field to pave their way to join the Editorial Board. The above-mentioned responsibilities are summarized below:

Single Blind Peer Review and Contribution to Editorial Decision

Punctuality and Promptness
Confidentiality of Results, Reports and Decisions
Standards of Objectivity: Reviewers express their comments and views clearly with supporting arguments and reviews.
Acknowledgement of Source: Reviewer particularly focuses on substantial similarity or overlap between the submitted manuscript and other published resources. 
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should not accept to review a manuscript if a conflict of interest exists.

Duties of Authors

Authors byline should precisely indicate those involved in the research, including the authors conducted the research and those who wrote the manuscript. Please note that following our publication policy, neither guest or honorary writer nor ghost (hidden) author is allowed. Manuscript submission is accompanied by authors’ agreement on their involvement in three phases of designing the study as well as analyzing and interpreting the data, writing the manuscript, and approving the final version of the manuscript. By submitting the declaration form, the authors have agreed that the corresponding author is the one who can make final decisions on the manuscript submission and any related changes to the manuscript. The following points needs to be considered by the authors:

Reporting Standards, Accurate Data, Sufficient Detail and References
Data Access and Retention: providing the raw data to editor if needed Falsification and Fabrication
Funding Acknowledgement
Authorship of the Paper: The significant contributors should be listed as co-authors. Other contributors can be acknowledged. The corresponding author is solely responsible for communicating with the journal editors and with managing communication between coauthors. Before submission, the corresponding author ensures that all authors are included in the author list, its order has been agreed by co-authors, and that all authors are aware that the paper was submitted.
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All sources of financial support for the project or any substantive conflict of interest that might be interpreted to influence the results of the paper should be disclosed.
Promptly Notifying the Fundamental Errors in Published Works

 Duties of the Publisher

We are committed to ensuring that commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, Rovedar journals will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors. Finally, we are working closely with other publishers and industry associations to set standards for best practices on ethical matters, errors and retractions--and are prepared to provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.

Sanctions

In the event that there are documented violations of any of the above mentioned policies in Rovedar Journals, the following sanctions can be applied:
• Immediate rejection of the infringing manuscript, every other manuscript submitted to our journals by any of the authors of the infringing manuscript.
• Prohibition against all of this manuscript's authors for any new submissions, either individually or in combination with other authors and also serving on the Editorial Board of Rovedar Journals, for a minimum of five years.
• If the violations of the policies are found to be particularly outrageous, the publisher reserves the right to impose additional sanctions.

Plagiarism Detection

Peer review is at the heart of the processes and the success of not just journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won (Richard Smith, 2006). As part of our commitment to the protection and enhancement of the peer review process, our journals have an obligation to assist the scientific community in all aspects of publishing ethics, especially in cases of (suspected) duplicate submission or plagiarism (including self-plagiarism). All manuscripts will be checked by ‚ÄčiThenticate a plagiarism finding tool. The received papers with plagiarism rate of more than 40% are immediately rejected.

Checklist

  1. Publication and authorship:
    - list of references, financial support;
    - no plagiarism, no fraudulent data;
    - forbidden to publish same research in more than one journal.

    2. Author's responsibilities:
    - authors are obliged to participate in peer review process;
    - all authors are obliged to have a significant contribution to the research;
    - statement that all data in article are real and authentic should be confirmed by the author(s);
    - all authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.

    3. Peer review / responsibility for the reviewers:
    - Judgments should be objective;
    - reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders;
    - reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited;
    - reviewed articles should be treated confidentially.

    4. Editorial responsibilities:
    - Editors have the full responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article;
    - editors should have no conflict of interest with respect to articles they reject/accept;
    - only accept a paper when reasonably certain;
    - when errors are found, promote publication of correction or retraction;
    - preserve anonymity of reviewers.

    5. Publishing ethics issues:
    - Monitor publishing ethics by editorial board;
    - Guidelines for retracting articles;
    - Maintain the integrity of the academic record;
    - Preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
    - Always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed;
    - no plagiarism, no fraudulent data.

Appeals and Complaints

Appealing Editorial Decision

Submissions may be rejected without external review with a very general statement of the rejection decision. Generally, these decisions are not qualified for a formal appeal.
However, authors who believe that their submission was rejected due to a misunderstanding or the decision was not in accordance with journal policy and procedures, may appeal the decision by sending the editor a comprehensive detailed response to the issues raised in the rejection letter (and not to justify the interest, novelty, or suitability of the manuscript for the journal).
The editor-in-chief (EiC) and editors will consider the appeal without giving any guarantee to accept the manuscript and thereafter if the Editor’s decision following the editorial criteria is rejection of the article, it will be deemed final.
In case of any dissatisfaction with the way editors have handled the authors' appeal, they may refer complaints to the email of the journal EiC (daryoush.babazadeh@shirazu.ac.ir), or they may contact the publisher at complaint@rovedar.com 

Appealing Corrective Action taken Post Publication

In case a published article is the subject of a complaint, the editor will decide on the retraction of the published article, other corrective actions, or notices on the published article. The decision will be in line with the guideline published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including COPE’s retraction guidelines  and in consultation with the publisher.
Rovedar and its journals reserve the right to take corrective actions to maintain a transparent and accurate academic record.

General Concerns and Making a Complaint

Complaints related to content, procedures, or policies of JVPP publication or our editorial staff, may provide an opportunity and will definitely help us to improve the standard of our services. Anybody wishing to raise a concern or make a complaint about any aspect of publication in the JVPP journal may email jvppeditor@gmail.com. The editors will respond quickly, courteously, and constructively to any complaint according to the following procedure.

• In the case that the initial response is felt to be insufficient, the complainant can request to escalate their complaint to a more senior member of the team.
• If the complainant remains unhappy, complaints may be escalated to the journal's EiC, for a final decision.
• If a complainant remains unhappy after what EiC considers a definitive reply, the complainant may complain to an external party with a relevant oversight.

Complaints sent to the publisher will usually be referred to the EiC of the journal of choice.

Handling Complaints and Appeals

The following principles and processes will be considered:

• Speed: All complaints will be formally acknowledged within two working days and processed as quickly as possible. We will then lead the investigation following COPE guidelines to make sure that the correct procedures have been followed or the author’s concerns have been addressed fairly and without prejudice by reviewing the paper’s peer review history and any correspondence between the author, editor, and reviewers. We may also contact the parties involved to obtain further information where necessary and in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) . Some complaints may be complex and take time to resolve fairly (for example, allowing a reasonable time for multiple parties to respond). So, we will try to resolve issues as swiftly as possible within two weeks. The final decision will be acknowledged to the author in writing.

• Fairness: We will try to treat all parties involved in a complaint fairly and avoid bias either in the process or outcome. We will avoid conflicts of interest.

• Confidentiality: We will only disclose information necessary to resolve a complaint in accordance with GDP regulations  .

• Clarity: We will seek to be clear in all our communication, and consider the needs of those we are communicating with. In the interest of allowing due process to take place, and investigations to proceed without prejudice, we respectfully request that anyone raising a concern or complaint allow the process to conclude before publicly commenting on the case.