1- Peer-review process
All submitted articles are evaluated at the submission stage to meet the structural and subject principles of each journal. The matched articles will be gone under a double-blinded peer-review process by at least 3 reviewers (expert in the field who are not part of the journal’s editorial staff) who are selected by the Editorial Board members according to their field specialties. The Editorial Board members have the final responsibility to select the articles.
- A peer-reviewed journal is one that regularly obtains advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers who are not part of the journal’s editorial staff.
- Peer review is intended to improve the accuracy, clarity, and completeness of published manuscripts and to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish.
- Peer review does not guarantee manuscript quality and does not reliably detect scientific misconduct.
- Peer review manipulation, also referred to as fraudulent peer review, can be defined as subversion of the peer review process, in which, an author or another person engaged on behalf of the author deceives a journal editor into sending a peer review invitation, such that the authors or a third party related to them can determine or control the contents of the review.
- Peer reviewers should be experts in the manuscript’s content area, research methods, or both; a critique of writing style alone is not sufficient.
- Peer reviewers should be selected based on their expertise and ability to provide high quality, constructive, and fair reviews.
- For research manuscripts, editors may, in addition, seek the opinion of a statistical reviewer.
- Peer reviewers advise editors on how a manuscript might be improved and on its priority for publication in that journal.
- Editors decide whether and under which conditions manuscripts are accepted for publication, assisted by reviewers’ advice.
- Peer reviewers are sometimes paid for their efforts but usually provide their opinions free of charge, as a service to their profession.
- Editors should require all peer reviewers to disclose any conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, related to a particular manuscript and should take this information into account when deciding how to use their review. Generally speaking, people with a direct financial interest in the results of the manuscripts should not be reviewers.
- To be considered peer reviewed, a journal should have obtained external reviews for the majority of manuscripts it publishes, including all original research and review articles. Some editors request peer review for other kinds of articles, such as opinion pieces (commentaries/editorials) and correspondence. To have been peer reviewed, a manuscript should have been reviewed by at least one external reviewer; it is typical to have two reviewers and sometimes more opinions are sought.
- Editors of peer-reviewed journals need not send all submitted manuscripts out for review. Manuscripts that seem unlikely to be published in that journal may be returned to authors without external review, to allow authors to submit the manuscript to another journal without delay and to make efficient use of reviewers’ and editors’ time.
- Editors should state their journal’s peer review policies, including which kinds of article are peer reviewed and by how many reviewers, in the instructions for authors.
- Statistics describing the journal’s review process, such as number of manuscripts submitted, acceptance rate, and average times from manuscript submission to rejection letter to authors and, for accepted manuscripts, time to publication will be issued upon request of concerned authorities.
- Editors should avoid using only author-recommended peer reviewers to review a paper.
- Editors should not use an author-recommended reviewer unless the person’s contact information is obtained from an independently validated source, e.g., from the reviewer’s publications or referred by a member of the Journal’s editorial board. Note that email addresses with top level domains such as .edu are more likely to be reliably linked to the correct individual than those with other less tightly controlled domains (e.g., Gmail or yahoo accounts). However, editors should not require reviewers to use their .edu or other professional email addresses because some institutions may not have reliable email access, particularly in low or middle income countries, and their faculty may prefer to use non-institutional email addresses. [In these limited cases, Editors may want to encourage potential reviewers to include the non-institutional email address on their institutional Web page]. Editors should consider applying similar diligence to reviewer-suggested reviewer names and emails.
- If the editor determines that an author has supplied a reviewer email address that is not correct, then the editor should ask the author for an explanation. Merely supplying an incorrect email address (e.g., with a typo or an outdated email address) does not imply a deliberate intent to deceive or manipulate. If the email address appears to have been submitted with intent to deceive the editor as to the address's owner, then the editor should take additional steps depending on the source of the deception, such as contacting the author’s institution.
- Editors should make every effort to find expert reviewers in the topics(s) addressed in the manuscript who are free of significant conflicts of interest. These efforts include the editors’ own expertise, and use of electronic databases, manuscript reference lists, editorial board recommendations, journal database searches, and the like. For highly specialized areas, chairs of departments and the like may have suggestions as to faculty with expertise.
- To avoid inviting peer reviewers with significant conflicts of interest, editors generally should exclude from consideration: (a) individuals who have coauthored manuscripts with the authors in the recent (e.g., 10 years) past, (b) individuals who work at the same institution as the authors, particularly if they are in the same area as an author or the institution is small, and (c) individuals who have other conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, for or against the paper. If editors make exceptions to these general principles when inviting reviewers, they should keep in mind the exception and its potential implications for the reviewer’s recommendations.
- Potential reviewers should be asked to recuse themselves prior to accepting a peer review invitation if they have a conflict of interest for or against the manuscript or if they are otherwise unable to review the manuscript objectively. Reviewers who agree to review and then discover a potential conflict should contact the editor.
- Every peer-reviewed journal should have its own Conflict of Interest policies for authors, reviewers, and editors that are publicly available and these should be provided to potential reviewers.
- Journal peer review systems should include a step asking the reviewers to report their potential conflicts of interest, requesting explanation and preventing review without editor intervention if reviewers answer in the affirmative.
All TMU journals are under the scientific control of their Editorial Board whose members are recognized experts in the subject areas included within the journal’s scope. Some executive roles of the Editorial Board members are delegated to the Editor-in-Chief who is well-known in the journal’s scope.
Decision about submitted manuscript to TMU journals is based only on its importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope and content. Studies with negative results despite adequate power, or those challenging previously published work receive equal consideration. Tarbiat Modares University Editorial Team (TMUET) has the responsibility to edit the accepted manuscripts before publishing to prevent potential falsifications and consistency of structural principles.
If a published paper is subsequently found to have errors or major flaws, TMUET take responsibility for promptly correcting the written record in the journal. The specific content of the correction may address whether the errors originated with the author or the journal. The correction is listed in the table of contents to ensure that it is linked to the article to which it pertains in public databases (e.g., Scopus, PMC, PubMed, etc.).
Ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics of editors are periodically assessed to assure optimal journal performance, and contribute to decisions on reappointment. Individual performance data must be confidential. These performance measures are also used to assess changes in process that might improve journal performance. The handling of manuscripts that may represent a conflict of interest for editors is described under the section on conflict of interest.
All the TMUET members
1. Respect their journal’s constituents (readers, authors, reviewers, and the human subjects of research) by:
Making the journal’s processes (e.g., governance, editorial staff members, number of reviewers, review times, acceptance rate) transparent;
Thanking reviewers for their work;
Protecting the confidentiality of human subjects.
2. Promote self-correction in science and participate in efforts to improve the practice of scientific investigation by:
Publishing corrections, retractions, and critiques of published articles;
Take responsibility for improving the level of scientific investigation and writing in the larger community of potential authors and readers.
3. Assure honesty and integrity of the content of their journal and minimize bias by:
Managing conflicts of interest;
Maintaining confidentiality of information;
Separating the editorial and business functions of the journal.
4. Improve the quality of their journal by:
Becoming familiar with the best practice in editing, peer review, research ethics, methods of investigation, and the rationale and evidence base supporting them;
Establishing appropriate programs to monitor journals’ performance;
Soliciting external evaluations of the journal’s effectiveness
Authorship is a way of making explicit both credit and responsibility for the contents of published articles. Credit and responsibility are inseparable. The guiding principle for authorship decisions is to present an honest account of what took place. Criteria for authorship apply to all intellectual products, including print and electronic publications of words, data, and images. Journals should make their own policies on authorship transparent and accessible.
- Everyone who has made substantial intellectual contributions to the study on which the article is based (for example, to the research question, design, analysis, interpretation, and written description) should be an author.
- It is dishonest to omit mention of someone who has participated in writing the manuscript (“ghost authorship”) and unfair to omit investigator who have had important engagement with other aspects of the work.
- Only an individual who has made substantial intellectual contributions should be an author.
- Performing technical services, translating text, supplying materials, and providing funding or administrative oversight over facilities where the work was done are not, in themselves, sufficient for authorship, although these contributions may be acknowledged in the manuscript.
- It is dishonest to include authors only because of their reputation, position of authority, or friendship (“guest authorship”).
- Many journals publish the names and contributions of everyone who has participated in the work (“contributors”). Not all contributors necessarily qualify for authorship. The nature of each contributors’ participation can be made transparent by a statement, published with the article, of their names and contributions.
- One author (a “guarantor”) should take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole. Often this is the corresponding author, the one who sends in the manuscript and receives reviews, but other authors can have this role. All authors should approve the final version of the manuscript.
- It is preferable that all authors be familiar with all aspects of the work. However, modern research is often done in teams with complementary expertise so that every author may not be equally familiar with all aspects of the work. For example, a biostatistician may have greater mastery of statistical aspects of the manuscript than other authors, but have somewhat less understanding of clinical variables or laboratory measurements. Therefore, some authors’ contributions may be limited to specific aspects of the work as a whole.
- All authors should comply with the journals’ policies on conflict of interest.
- Editors should not arbitrarily limit the number of authors.
- There are legitimate reasons for multiple authors in some kinds of research, such as multi-center, randomized controlled trials. In these situations, a subset of authors may be listed with the title, with the notation that they have prepared the manuscript on behalf of all contributors, who are then listed in an appendix to the published article.
- A “corporate” author (e.g., a “Group” name) representing all authors in a named study may be listed, as long as one investigator takes responsibility for the work as a whole. In either case, all individuals listed as authors should meet criteria for authorship whether or not they are listed explicitly on the byline.
- If editors believe the number of authors is unusually large, relative to the scope and complexity of the work, they can ask for a detailed description of each author’s contributions to the work. If some do not meet criteria for authorship, editors can require that their names be removed as a condition of publication.
- The authors themselves should decide the order in which authors are listed in an article.
- No one else other than authors knows as well as they do their respective contributions and the agreements they have made among themselves.
- Many different criteria are used to decide order of authorship. Among these are relative contributions to the work and, in situations where all authors have contributed equally, alphabetical or random order.
- Readers cannot know, and should not assume, the meaning of order of authorship unless the approach to assigning order has been described by the authors.
- Authors may want to include with their manuscript a description of how order was decided. If so, editors should welcome this information and publish it with the manuscript.
- Disputes about authorship are best settled at the local level, before journals review the manuscript. However, at their discretion editors may become involved in resolving authorship disputes.
- Changes in authorship at any stage of manuscript review, revision, or acceptance should be accompanied by a written request and explanation from all of the original authors.
- The integrity of the published record of scientific research depends not only on the validity of the science but also on honesty in authorship.
- Editors and readers need to be confident that authors have undertaken the work described and have ensured that the manuscript accurately reflects their work, irrespective of whether they took the lead in writing or sought assistance from a writer in the field.
- The scientific record is distorted if the primary purpose of an article is to persuade readers in favor of a special interest, rather than to inform and educate, and this purpose is concealed.
- Ghost authorship exists when someone has made substantial contributions to writing a manuscript and this role is not mentioned in the manuscript itself. To prevent some instances of ghost authorship, editors should make clear in their journal's information for authors that writers can be legitimate contributors and that their roles and affiliations should be described in the manuscript. When editors detect ghost written manuscripts, their actions should involve both the submitting authors and commercial participants if they are involved. Several actions are possible:
Together, these actions would increase transparency and public accountability about ghost writing and its manipulation of the scientific record and deter others from this practice.
The contents of all TMU journals are under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License. To the extent this Public License may be interpreted as a contract, we are granted the Licensed Rights in consideration of your acceptance of these terms and conditions, and the Licensor grants you such rights in consideration of benefits the Licensor receive from making the Licensed Material available under these terms and conditions.
Creative Commons public licenses provide a standard set of terms and conditions that creators and other rights holders may use to share original works of authorship and other material subject to copyright and certain other rights specified in the public licenses. All TMU materials are under the Creative Common Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License. Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the following conditions:
If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:
Identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated);
a copyright notice;
a notice that refers to this Public License;
a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties;
a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable;
Indicate if you modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications; and
Indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License.
You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information.
If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable.
If You Share Adapted Material You produce, the Adapter’s License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted Material from complying with this Public License.
TMU and editors of all TMU journals are reasonable to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In doing so, TMU follows COPE’s guidelines in dealing with allegations.
The publication of peer reviewed articles is an essential model for our journal "International Archives of Health Sciences". It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher. TMU ethical statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
- The editor-in-chief is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.
- The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
- An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
- The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
- Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
- Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
- Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
- Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
- Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
- Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
- Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention
- Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and Plagiarism
- The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
- An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of Sources
- Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of the Paper
- Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
- The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
- If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
- All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works
- When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
TMU has tried to make a practical division between the policy-makers of services/researches and the scientific decision-makers of scholarly materials. In TMU opinion, this is an important issue which should not be neglected by the journal management systems; because it can lead to low quality outputs and deviates the way of science.
TMU has 3 major principles in scholarly publishing:
- The independence of Editorial Board members especially the Editor-in-Chief in making scientific decisions;
- Performing appropriate peer-review model for selecting scholarly materials; and
- The structural consistency of published materials that help the readers and researchers to recover and use them easily;
TMU has tried to resist against all parameters which conflict with these principles and also make all the participants of scholarly material production aware of the consequences of deviation from these principles.
The following are guidelines for protecting the responsibility and authority of editors-in-chief and owners:
- The conditions of the editors-in-chief’s employment, including authority, responsibilities, term of appointment, and mechanisms for resolving conflict, should be explicitly stated and approved by both editor and owners before the editor is appointed.
- Editors-in-chief should have full authority over the editorial content of the journal, generally referred to as "editorial independence." Owners should not interfere in the evaluation, selection, or editing of individual articles, either directly or by creating an environment in which editorial decisions are strongly influenced.
- Editorial decisions should be based mainly on the validity of the work and its importance to readers, not the commercial success of the journal. Editors should be free to express critical but responsible views about all aspects of science without fear of retribution, even if these views might conflict with the commercial goals of the publisher. To maintain this position, editors should seek input from a broad array of advisors, such as reviewers, editorial staff, an editorial board, and readers.
- Editors-in-chief should establish procedures that guard against the influence of commercial and personal self-interest on editorial decisions.
- Owners have the right to hire and fire editors-in-chief, but they should dismiss them only for substantial reasons, such as a pattern of irresponsible editorial decisions, scientific misconduct, disagreement with the long-term editorial direction of the journal, or personal behavior (such as criminal acts), that are incompatible with a position of trust. Furthermore it is preferable that any evaluation on which hiring or firing is based should be performed by a panel of independent experts, rather than a small number of executives of the owning organization.
- Editors-in-chief should report to the highest governing body of the owning organization, not its administrative officers. Major decisions regarding the editor’s employment should be made by this body with open discussion and time to hear from all interested parties. Some owners have found it useful to appoint an independent board to advise them on major decisions regarding their editor and journal.
- Editors should resist any actions that might compromise these principles in their journals, even if it places their own position at stake. If major transgressions do occur, editors should participate in drawing them to the attention of the international scientific community.
All TMU journals’ Editorial Board members and the Editor-in-Chief submitted articles are gone under the same reviewing process as the other authors gone. In the cases that a reviewer suspects undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript or a reader suspects undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article (all authors are filling the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest at the submission time) TMU will follow COPE’s guidelines.
TMU is financially supported completely by the Tarbiat Modares University and has no other sources for earning funds. TMU accepts No advertisements in the site or even as a report article.
TMU journals are published by different frequencies. All the content from the beginning to the end will be available for ever on TMU’s own website. Also TMU journals are included at EBSCOhost and have the plan to enter to SCOPUS database.