Publication Ethics

 

Plagiarism

We accept all terms and conditions of COPE about plagiarism and in case, any attempt of plagiarism is brought to our attention accompanied by convincing evidence, we act based on flowcharts and workflows determined in COPE.

Duties of Editor-in-Chief the Journal of Sustainable Urban and Regional Development Studies (JSURDS)

  • Editor in chief is directly responsible for the journal and all the processes of the evaluation, judgment, and electronic publishing of the articles are under his supervision.
  • Journal independence, not involving in publication ethics in research.
  • Final decision on publishing or not publishing the manuscripts.
  • Management and scheduling of the executive processes of the journal and certainty in appropriate implementation of all processes.
  • Drawing readers’ attention towards sending qualified manuscripts in the scientific journal.
  • Making efforts to improve the journal with all possible methods and making decisions on the future of the journal.
  • Presentation of the journal in national and international scientific databases.
  • Determination of the criteria for selection of referees through the discussions in editorial board meetings.
  • Sending the articles to the copyeditor and English editor.
  • Making efforts on the quality upgrade of the journal.
  • Increase the extent of citations to the journal.
  • The final manuscript acceptance letters.
  • Control of editing and following the structure of the articles.

Duties of Authors

  • Reporting standards
  • Data Access and Retention
  • Originality and Plagiarism
  • Acknowledgment of Sources
  • Authorship of the Paper
  • Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
  • Fundamental errors in published works
  • 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
  • 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.
  • The authors of the articles have to represent a precise account of the work and a scientific expression of its significance.
  • The articles have to include sufficient details and references in order to let others replicate them. False and spurious statements are immoral and unacceptable.
  • All individuals who collaborate in preparing an article should be considered as the authors of the article or have to thank them as the collaborators of the article.
  • The corresponding author has to ensure that the names of all authors have been included in the article. All authors have to read the final version of the article, confirm its content, and accept to send it to the journal for publication.

Duties of Reviewers

What should be checked while reviewing a manuscript?

  • Innovation and originality
  • Scientific reliability
  • Ethical aspects
  • Providing all required information within established deadlines
  • Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to Authors’ Guidelines
  • Review the article in terms of authors' use of new references
  • Grammar, punctuation, spelling, and referencing and citation style of APA
  • Reporting possible research misconducts
  • Not identifying themselves to authors
  • Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work
  • Reviewing a manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work
  • Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal
  • Reporting possible research misconducts (Plagiarism)
  • Treating the manuscript as a confidential document
  • Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors
  • Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge
  • Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions
  • Reviewers through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
  • The referee has to inform the editor in chief concerning the considerable similarities and overlapping among the articles under reviewing or any other published article which he/she has encountered before.
  • Each referee who thinks that he/she seems to be unqualified to review an article, the topic of the article falls outside his/her area of expertise, does not have enough time because of the long process of reviewing, has no access to adequate facilities, and so on. He/ She has to inform the editor in chief and resigns from the process of reviewing the article.
  • 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.
  • Confidentiality: 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.
  • Acknowledgment 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.