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