1. Website

The journal’s Web site is available at: https://jppolicy.ut.ac.ir/?lang=en. All required ethical and professional standards are available at the journal website.

2. Name of Journal & Abbreviation

The journal title is the Iranain Journal of Public Policy. The Abbreviation of journal is IJPPolicy. The journal Acronym is ijpp.

3. Peer-Review Process

3-1) Peer Review Policy

Journal is committed to apply double-blind peer review process based on the COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices.

3-2) Peer Review Process

The decision to publish a paper is based on an editorial assessment and peer review.  The prime purpose is to decide about fast rejection or the decision to send the manuscript to external review. Papers which their topics are not relevant to the journal aim & scope or they did not meet basic journal standards and requirements will be rejected at this stage to avoid delays to authors who may wish to seek publication elsewhere. Occasionally a paper will be returned to the author with requests for revisions in order to assist the editors in deciding whether or not send it out for review. Authors can expect a decision from this stage of the review process within 1–2 weeks of submission.
 We take every reasonable step to ensure author identity is concealed during the review process.

We aim to complete the review process within 6 weeks of the decision to review. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to the final decision regarding acceptance.

3-3) Reviewers Role

Reviewers are the main members contributing for the benefit of the journal being a double-blind peer review process possible. Double-blind referees 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 will 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 have high quality and be an original work. He/she may inform the editor if he/she 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: Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to author guidelines, Purpose and Objective of the article, Method of using transitions in the article, Introduction given and the conclusion/ suggestions provided, References provided to substantiate the content, Grammar, punctuation and spelling, Plagiarism issues, Suitability of the article to the need, A reviewer’s comments decide the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript as a major element in a peer review process. All our reviewers are requested to go through the articles submitted to them for review in details and give the review comments without any bias, conflict of interests which finally will be observed & decided by journal Editor-in-Chief.

3-4) Guidance for Peer Reviewers

All manuscripts are double-blind reviewed. 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 (Editor-in-Chief), who make the final 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. 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. 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 should also:

Write clearly . Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers. Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments. If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are. Reviewer Score Sheet is seen by the editors only and the comments will be shared with the authors. You should also indicate if the manuscript requires its grammar, punctuation or spelling to be corrected (there is a prompt for this).

3-5) Privacy and Confidentiality

All manuscripts must be reviewed with due respect for authors’ confidentiality. In submitting their manuscripts for review, authors entrust editors with the results of their scientific work and creative effort, on which their reputation and career may depend. Authors’ rights may be violated by disclosure of the confidential details during review of their manuscript. Reviewers also have rights to confidentiality, which must be respected by the editor. Confidentiality may have to be breached if dishonesty or fraud is alleged but otherwise must be honored. Editors must not disclose information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, criticism by reviewers, or ultimate fate) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This includes requests to use the materials for legal proceedings.

Editors must make clear to their reviewers that manuscripts sent for review are privileged communications and are the private property of the authors. Therefore, reviewers and members of the editorial staff must respect the authors’ rights by not publicly discussing the authors’ work or appropriating their ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers must not be allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their files and must be prohibited from sharing it with others, except with the editor’s permission. Reviewers should return or delete copies of manuscripts after submitting reviews. Editors should not keep copies of rejected manuscripts. Reviewer comments should not be published or otherwise publicized without permission of the reviewer, author, and editor.

3-6) COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts

The Journal are committed to follow and apply guidelines and flowcharts of Committee on Publication Ethics in its reviewing and publishing process and issues. For more information, see: https://publicationethics.org

3-7) Conflict of Interest in Reviewing Process

Although we are applying double bind peer review, research sphere can be a small world. It means many reviewers may know the author out of familiarity with their work. You can certainly give a fair assessment of an article that is written by a friend or competitor, but, if there’s a significant conflict of interest, you should reveal this to the editor if the conflict of interest causes a large positive or negative bias, then it is better to decline the review request. Avoid personal judgment and criticism at all times – judge the article. This is more likely to be well received by the author and lead to better work by them. Every editor will appreciate honesty about conflicts of interest, even if they then have to look for a replacement reviewer.

4. Ownership and Management

The Iranian Journal of  public Policy is owned & published by University of Tehran, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences.

5. Governing Body

The Journal's Governing Body and their affiliations & contact information are available here.

6. Editorial Board

The Journal's Editorial Board and their affiliations & contact information are available at the journal page menu titled: "Editorial Board".

7. Copyright and Licensing

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
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.

Authors have copyright but license exclusive rights in their article to the publisher.
Authors have the right to:

• Share their article according to the "Personal Use rights" so long as it contains the end user license and the DOI link to the version of record in this journal.
• Retain intellectual property rights (including research data).
• Proper attribution and credit for the published work.

Authors can use their articles, in full or in part, for scholarly, non-commercial purposes such as:

• Use by an author in the author’s classroom teaching (including distribution of copies, paper or electronic)
• Distribution of copies (including through e-mail) to known research colleagues for their personal use (but not for Commercial Use)
• Inclusion in a thesis or dissertation (provided that this is not to be published commercially)
• Use in a subsequent compilation of the author’s works
• Extending the Article to book-length form
• Preparation of other derivative works (but not for Commercial Use)
• Otherwise using or re-using portions or excerpts in other works.

8. Authors and Authors Responsibilities

The corresponding author takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process, and typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval and gathering conflict of interest statements, are properly completed. The corresponding author should respond to editorial queries throughout the submission and peer review process in a timely manner, and should cooperate with any requests from the journal after publication.

The Iranian Journal of Public Policy  does not allow adding authors or changing the first or the corresponding authors after the final acceptance of the article. If any author wishes to be removed from the byline, he or she should submit a letter signed by the author, as well as all other authors, indicating his or her wish to be deleted from the list of authors. Any change in the name order requires a letter signed by all authors indicting agreement with the same.

The corresponding author takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process, and typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest statements, are properly completed. The corresponding author should respond to editorial queries throughout the submission and peer review process in a timely manner, and should cooperate with any requests from the journal after publication.

Originality and Duplicate Publication

Manuscripts submitted to journal must be original and not published or submitted for publication elsewhere. This rule also applies to manuscripts submitted elsewhere while the TUMS journals contribution is under evaluation. It is mandatory for all authors to resolve any copyright issues when citing a figure or table from a different journal.

9. Author Fees

10. Publication Ethics

Details of the journal publication ethics consideration, codes, terms, and rules are:

The  Iranian Journal of Public Policy owned by Tehran University of Law and Political Sciences Faculty, is committed to apply ethics of publication, based on the COPE’s Code of Conduct.

COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts

The Iranain Journal of Public Policy is committed to follow and apply guidelines and flowcharts of Committee on Publication Ethics in its reviewing and publishing process and management.

COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices

1. Editors

Chief Editors is accountable for everything published in the journal. This means the editors:
- 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.

1. Readers

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.
COPE’s Code of Conduct 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)
• informing readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staffer editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation
• 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
  Relation 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.
• A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
• Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions.
• 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.
• Editors should provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor following the standards within the relevant field.

1. Relation with reviewers

• 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.
• 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 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.

1. 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. 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

1. Relations with Publisher

• The relationship of editors to Publisher and the owner is based firmly on the principle of editorial independence.
• Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from Publisher.
• Editors have a written contract(s) setting out their relationship with Publisher.
• 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
  1. 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.
• 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

1. Quality assurance

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.

1. 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.

 

1. Dealing with possible misconduct

- 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.

- Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.

- Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable.

- 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.
- 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.

1. Insuring the integrity of the academic record

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

1. Intellectual property

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

1. Complaints

• 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
• Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart on complaints.

 

1. Commercial considerations

• 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).
• Editors should have declared policies on advertising in relation to the content of the journal and on processes for publishing sponsored supplements.
• 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.

1. Conflicts of interest

• Editors should use IJPPolicy form and procedure for managing the conflicts of interest issues.
• 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. The Authors may use trustable valid "Plagiarism Checking software’s" to make sure that their manuscripts are Plagiarism free. Anyway, all submitted papers to the journal will be checked against Plagiarism upon receiving and also before publishing finally using iThenticate & other Plagiarism Detection Software’s. If the Reviewers, Editor-in-Chiefs, 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.

COPE’s code of conduct and flowcharts will be used if any Plagiarism detected in a submitted manuscript or if it is found in a published paper. https://www.ithenticate.com.

11. Publishing Schedule

The Journal published in a quarterly basis.

12. Archiving Policy

The journal is now archiving electronically at the local national & international repositories as follows:

• ISC: Islamic World Science Citation Center
• Iran Scientific Information Database (SID)
• Magiran.

13. Revenue Sources

The Iranian Journal of Public Policy is an Open Access journal, so publishing an article in the Journal requires publication fees, that will be billed to the submitting author following the submission and then acceptance of an article for publication. The fee to be paid following acceptance of an article is: 2,000,000 IRR. .

14. Advertising

According to University of Tehran, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences rules, we do not accept advertisement in any case.

15. Direct Marketing

The Iranian Journal of Public Policy do not have any direct marketing activities.  

16. The Publisher Principles: Codes of Conduct and Ethical Guidelines

The Journal is committed to apply the codes and principles of conduct of the publisher, University of Tehran. The Journal is also committed to apply the codes and principles of conduct of "Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing" published & updated 15 September 2022 by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).