JSSR Code of Conduct
Base on COPE
The following code is extracted from COPE (Committee On Publication Ethics). The text is adapted according to the aims, scope and the editorial policies of the JSSR(Journal Stratigraphy and Sedimentology Researches University of Isfahan)
1- Guidelines for Editors
1-1- General duties and responsibilities of editors
Editors should be accountable for everything published in their journals. This means the editors should:
- Strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
- Strive to constantly improve their journal;
- Have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish;
- Champion freedom of expression;
- 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.
- Editors should never hesitate to publish information their readers have a right to know.
1-2- Avoid conflicts of interest
Editors should not accept favors or gifts intended to influence editorial coverage. Editors should not hold a financial interest in any company they cover. Editors should avoid working with and reporting on the same marketers. Conflicts of interest, including personal relationships that could influence editorial coverage, should be disclosed to the reader.
1-3- Differentiate editorial content and advertising
Regardless of platform or format, the difference between editorial content and marketing messages should be clear to the average reader. On websites populated by multiple sources of content, including user-generated content, aggregated content and marketer-provided content, editors and publishers must take special care to distinguish between editorial content and advertising. Editors should not permit advertiser influence to compromise editorial integrity.
1-4- Do Not Trade Editorial Coverage for Advertising
No product should receive editorial endorsement in exchange for payment. Product placement that indicates editorial endorsement should be avoided. Advertisements should not be integrated into editorial content. Editorial coverage of a person or product should not be intentionally positioned adjacent to advertising related to the same person or product.
1-5- Relations with authors
- 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.
- Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
- New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.
- The journal should publish submission and acceptance dates for articles.
- Editor must not distinguish the author and the universities, also must publish the work by order in time.
- All authors’ identities must be kept unknown or unseen by reviewers until accepting the work.
1-6- Relations with editorial board members
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.
1-7- Relations with reviewers
- Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
- Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected.
- Editor must ensure that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers.
1-8- Relations with journal owners and publishers
Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from the journal owner/publisher.
1-9- Editorial and peer review processes
- Editors should strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely.
- Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.
Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further.
2- Guidelines for Reviewers
2-1 Make sure the article you have been asked to review truly matches your expertise
The Editor who has approached you may not know your work intimately, and may only be aware of your work in a broader context. Only accept an invitation if you are competent to review the article.
2-2 Avoid a potential conflict of interest
A conflict of interest will not necessarily eliminate you from reviewing an article, but full disclosure to the editor will allow them to make an informed decision. For example; if you work in the same department or institute as one of the authors; if you have worked on a paper previously with an author; or you have a professional or financial connection to the article. These should all be listed when responding to the editor's invitation for review.
2-3 Check that you have enough time
Reviewing an article can be quite time consuming. The time taken to review can vary greatly between disciplines and of course on article type, but on average, an article will take about 5 hours to review properly. Will you have sufficient time before the deadline stipulated in the invitation to conduct a thorough review?
2-4 Understand what it means to accept to review and manage deadlines
The editors will provide information on deadline expectations with the review request. Let them know within a day or two that you got the request. They will appreciate being informed in a timely manner if you are able to complete the review or not. There are no consequences for refusing to review a paper.
If you feel the review will take you longer to complete than normal, please contact the editor to discuss the matter. The editor may ask you to recommend an alternate reviewer, or may be willing to wait a little longer (e.g., if the paper is highly specialized and reviewers are difficult to find). As a general guideline, if you know you will not be able to complete a review within the time frame requested, you should decline to review the paper.
3-1 Research Freedom
- Researchers should focus their research for the good of mankind and for expanding the frontiers of scientific knowledge, while enjoying the freedom of thought and expression, and the freedom to identify methods by which problems are solved, according to recognized ethical principles and practices.
- Researchers should, however, recognize the limitations to this freedom that could arise as a result of particular research circumstances (including supervision/guidance/management) or operational constraints, e.g. for budgetary or infrastructural reasons or, especially in the industrial sector, for reasons of intellectual property protection. Such limitations should not, however, contravene recognised ethical principles and practices, to which researchers have to adhere.
3-2 Ethical principles
Researchers should adhere to the recognized ethical practices and fundamental ethical principles appropriate to their discipline (s) as well as to ethical standards as documented in the different national, sectoral or institutional Codes of Ethics.
3-3 Professional responsibility
- Researchers should make every effort to ensure that their research is relevant to society and does not duplicate research previously carried out elsewhere.
- They must avoid plagiarism of any kind and abide by the principle of intellectual property and joint data ownership in the case of research carried out in collaboration with a supervisor(s) and/or other researchers. The need to validate new observations by showing that experiments are reproducible should not be interpreted as plagiarism, provided that the data to be confirmed are explicitly quoted.
- Researchers should ensure, if any aspect of their work is delegated, that the person to whom it is delegated has the competence to carry it out.
3-4 Professional attitude
Researchers should be familiar with the strategic goals governing their research environment and funding mechanisms, and should seek all necessary approvals before starting their research or accessing the resources provided.
Researchers should at all times adopt safe working practices, in line with national legislation, including taking the necessary precautions for health and safety and for recovery from information technology disasters, e.g. by preparing proper back-up strategies. They should also be familiar with the current national legal requirements regarding data protection and confidentiality protection requirements, and undertake the necessary steps to fulfill them at all times.
3-5 Dissemination, exploitation of results
All researchers should ensure, in compliance with their contractual arrangements, that the results of their research are disseminated and exploited, e.g. communicated, transferred into other research settings or, if appropriate, commercialized. Senior researchers, in particular, are expected to take a lead in ensuring that research is fruitful and that results are either exploited commercially or made accessible to the public (or both) whenever the opportunity arises.
3-6 Relation with supervisors
Researchers in their training phase should establish a structured and regular relationship with their supervisor (s) and faculty/departmental representative (s) so as to take full advantage of their relationship with them. This includes keeping records of all work progress and research findings, obtaining feedback by means of reports and seminars, applying such feedback and working in accordance with agreed schedules, milestones, deliverables and/or research outputs.