Ethical Principles of Publishing an Article
Ethical Charter of the Journal
Scientific Journal of Innovation Management in Defense Organizations with the aim of selecting and publishing the highest quality research in the field of innovation management provides a forum for the researchers to share their findings. In order to achieve this goal, the process of reviewing and publishing research articles must be conducted accurately and with an impartial approach. Gaining the trust of all stakeholders in the observance of justice in the process of reviewing and publishing articles increases the reputation and credibility of journals. Therefore, the ethical charter of journals is designed to achieve the goal of building trust in the review and publication process. This charter sets out the publication's policies to ensure the ethical conduct of all participants in the aforementioned process. This charter applies to articles submitted to this journal and may be reviewed and modified by journal editorial board in due course. This charter is prepared in three sections for authors, editors and reviewers and they are requested to read it carefully and ask any probable questions from the editor-in-chief of the journal via the article management system.
Ethical Charter for Authors
Originality
When authors submit an article to the journal, it must be new and original. Authors may not submit a manuscript being reviewed, in whole or in part, in another journal to this journal, nor may they submit an article being reviewed in whole or in part in this journal to another journal.
The submitted article, in whole or in part, in Persian or any other languages, should not have been previously published elsewhere or accepted for publication.
Authors should express their original work and ideas explicitly, even when they are not objectively rewritten or quoted in the manuscript. If there are exact sentences or paragraphs in the research work that appear to be taken from an article or other works by the author, these should be cited in "quotation marks".
The origin and authenticity of each of the datasets used should be cited in the manuscript. If the given dataset is used elsewhere by this or another author, whether published or unpublished, it should be appropriately cited.
Authors should not submit a manuscript that have already been submitted to this journal, reviewed and rejected by the editor-in-chief after evaluation. If the first manuscript has already been rejected and the author wishes to submit a revised version of the manuscript for evaluation, the justification for resubmission must be clearly stated by the authors to the editor-in-chief of the journal. Only under certain circumstances is it permissible to resubmit the manuscript a second time.
Plagiarism
Submission of the manuscript in the publication system will be notified by sending an email to all authors. In fact, the inclusion of the authors’ names in the manuscript indicate their main contribution in writing of the manuscript. If the authors did not make a contribution in writing of the manuscript and their names have been misused, they need to inform the journal immediately via email. All authors are responsible for the originality of the work. The journal reserves the right to evaluate plagiarism cases. Plagiarism comes in many forms, including:
a. Submitting others’ article in your own name
b. Including names of authors and researchers who have not made any contributions in the manuscript
c. Copying or duplicating significant parts of other articles (even if the copied article belongs to one of the authors of the new manuscript)
d. Citing the findings of others' research in your own name
e. Publishing an article repeatedly by a single author in several journals
f. Presenting incorrect results and contrary to scientific findings or distorting research results
g. Applying invalid data or manipulating the research data
Cases of plagiarism are investigated by the officials of the journal and in order to protect the credibility and efforts of other researchers, without any tolerance or waiver, considering the amount of plagiarism, legal action is taken as follows:
1. The article will be rejected and will be removed from the websites if published.
2. The names of all the authors of the article will be included in the publications’ blacklist of Shahid Sattari Air University.
3. Legal action will be taken by the competent judicial authorities.
4. The plagiarism case will be shared, via an official letter, with other universities and related domestic and foreign publications.
The Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, the Islamic World Science Citation Database (ISC), universities, institutes, journals and any place where the authors have benefitted from this article will be informed via an official letter.
Copyright and License
All Quarterly Journal of Innovation Management in Defense Organizations articles are published under a Creative Commons License. Therefore, the copyright of articles accepted for QJIMDO rests with the author(s).All authors will be presented with the option to make articles available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial (CC BY NC).Copyright in any article published by QJIMDO Open Access journal under the CC BY NC license is retained by the author(s). The Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY NC) permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Double-blind peer review
Journal follows a Double-Blind peer review in which the authors do not know the reviewers and vice versa. The authors should respect the confidentiality of the assessment process and don’t reveal their identity to reviewers and vice versa. For instance, article should not include any information like self-revelation in a way that the reviewer can identify the author.
Authors should not publish their submitted papers on sites (either articles or first versions) because authors can be identified easily by reviewers in websites.
Authors should not mention the people as editor or reviewer where their previous article or previous copy has been studied and suggested his recommendations because this awareness or knowledge is in contrary with Double-Blind peer review process.
Conflict of Interest
The corresponding author should acknowledge the sources of financial support for the project in the text of the article and then send it. Any of the benefits mentioned should be published with the article. If there is any doubt about the type of situation that represents a conflict, it should be clarified, any case of conflict of interest should be raised with the journal bureau or editor-in-chief.
When submitting an article to the journal, the corresponding author has the opportunity to nominate a potential referee for the article. Authors should avoid any potential conflict of interest or its manifestation in the selection of editors and reviewers. Conflict of interest of this kind apply not only to the corresponding author but also to the co-authors in the article.
Examples of possible conflicts of interest include: (1) One of the authors is in the same institution or organization as the editor-in-chief or reviewer; (2) one of the authors is a member of the dissertation/thesis committee, editor-in-chief or reviewer, or vice versa; (3) One of the authors and editor-in-chief or reviewers are currently co-authors of another article or have co-authored an article in the past two years.
Authors should not nominate referees, who they know, have read the previous version of the article and made suggestions; Because such knowledge automatically violates the blind review process of the article.
Double-Blind Review
The journal follows a double-blind review process in which authors do not know the reviewers and vice versa. Authors should respect the confidentiality of the review process and not reveal their identities to the reviewers, and vice versa. For example, the article should not contain any information subject to self-disclosure so that the reviewer can identify the author.
Authors should not publish their submissions (including original manuscripts and drafts) on websites; Because on websites, authors can be easily identified by the reviewers.
Authors should not nominate referees, who they know, have read the previous version of the article and made suggestions; Because such knowledge automatically violates the blind review process of the article.
Accuracy
The authors are ultimately responsible for the content of the entire manuscript submitted to the journal. The authors are committed to providing an accurate overview of the research as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the research.
Authors should report their findings in their entirety and should not omit data that is relevant to the text or structure of the research questions. Results should be reported regardless of whether they support or contradict the expected outcomes. Authors should be especially careful in presenting features or characteristics related to their research or findings and their interpretations. The basic assumptions, theories, methods, indicators, and research designs related to the findings and interpretations of their work should be stated.
The article should contain sufficient details and resources so that other researchers can access the same dataset to replicate the research.
If authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their work, they are committed to informing the editor-in-chief of the journal immediately and cooperating in reviewing or correcting the article. If the author or publisher finds out by a third party or entity that the published work has a serious error; The author is committed to promptly reviewing or correcting the article or providing evidence to the editor-in-chief that the original or primary article is correct.
Co-authorship
All authors mentioned in the article should make a significant contribution and cooperation in research work and be accountable for the results. The credibility and privilege of writing or authorship should be shared in proportion to the contributions to the various sections. Authors should take the responsibility and credibility of the work, which includes the credibility of the authorship, only for the work they have done in practice or the work to which they have contributed.
Authors should typically cite the student's name as the lead co-author in articles having multiple authors and which is largely taken from the student's thesis or dissertation.
The corresponding author who submits the manuscript to the journal should send a copy or draft of the manuscript to all co-authors and obtain their consent to submit the manuscript to the journal for publication.
Human Rights
The authors are responsible for safeguarding privacy, human dignity, well-being and freedom of human issues and research participants. Articles dealing with human issues (field studies, simulations, interviews) must comply with the requirements of the Human Rights Code at the author's university.
Promptness
Authors should act quickly and appropriately to revise and edit the article. If authors are unable to comply with the deadline (maximum one month), they should contact the editor-in-chief as soon as possible to request for the longer duration or cancel the review process.
Ethical Charter for Editors-in-Chief
Independence
Editors-in-chief should maintain the independence of their writing and revision to ensure that writers have the freedom to write. It is the responsibility of the editors-in-chief to accept or reject the manuscripts. During the normal process, this requires the opinion and advice of the reviewers; However, manuscripts that the editors-in-chief believe are completely inappropriate may be rejected without review by the reviewers.
Standards of Objectivity
Editors-in-chief should confidentially, impartially and constructively increase their position and status. Editors-in-chief are responsible for reviewing manuscripts solely in terms of academic competence. Editors-in-chief should act without personal or ideological bias or resentment.
Conflict of Interest
Editors-in-chief should avoid any action that raises a conflict of interest or its unreasonable prestige. for example:
To avoid potential conflict of interest, the editor-in-chief should not publish material that is not clearly identifiable, has not been reviewed, or has been subject to blind review. The responsibility and authority to write and revise any article written by the editor-in-chief and sent to the journal office should be delegated through the editor-in-chief to another competent person, such as the previous editor-in-chief of the journal or a member of the editorial board and consultants. Written or editorial considerations in the article by the author-editor in any way and in any case is never acceptable
Editors-in-chief should refrain from reviewing an article that creates a conflict of real or potential interest to them, a conflict that arises out of competition, partnership, finance, and other relationships with any author, company, or entity associated with the article. Examples of links that show conflicts of interest between the editor-in-chief and the author are: (1) The editor-in-chief and the author are both employed by one entity. (2) the editor-in-chief has been a member of the author's dissertation committee or vice versa; (3) The author and editor-in-chief are currently co-authors of another article or have co-authored an article over the past two years.
Double-Blind Review
The journal follows a double-blind review process in which authors do not know the reviewers and vice versa. Where journal articles do not appear to have been subject to double-blind review, the evaluation standard should be clearly stated.
Confidentiality
Editors-in-chief and their editorial board should not disclose information about the article to anyone other than the reviewers and authors. Administrative and formal procedures should be established to maintain the confidentiality of the review process. Editors-in-chief are expected to ensure the confidentiality of the double-blind review process and the non-disclosure of information that may reveal the authors' identities to the reviewers or vice versa. The reviewers’ anonymity can only be violated if the editors-in-chief obtain permission from the reviewers to reveal their identities.
Editors-in-chief need to ensure that their editorial board complies with this practice. Those unpublished parts of articles should not be used in an editor's personal research without the written consent of the author. Confidential information or ideas obtained through article review should be kept confidential and not used for personal benefit.
Review Quality
Typically, two reviewers are invited to comment on an article. The editor-in-chief should review and evaluate all reviews in terms of quality on a daily basis. In rare cases, the editor-in-chief may edit a reviewed article before submitting it to the author (for example, to remove a phrase that reveals the identity of the reviewer) or not to send the reviewed article to the author if it is not constructive and appropriate. Review quality ratings and other performance characteristics should be evaluated periodically by the editor-in-chief to ensure optimal performance of the journal. These ratings and rankings should also help in making decisions about the re-appointment of the jury and the ongoing requests for evaluation. Reviewers’ personal performance data should be available to editors-in-chief and kept confidential.
Promptness
Editors-in-chief should proceed to the initial review and selection of reviewers within the deadline (maximum one week after receiving the article) to ensure timely evaluation of all articles and prompt response to authors' requests for evaluation status.
Decision Quality
Editors-in-chief are responsible for explaining editorial decisions to authors regarding their articles. Editors-in-chief should write high-quality letters that are a combination of reviewer recommendations and other additional suggestions for the author. Editors-in-chief should not attach the result of the decision in the form of a letter, without explanation, to a set of recommendations and suggestions of the reviewer.
Accuracy
When the editors-in-chief receive convincing evidence from the reviewer that the concept or result of an unpublished article is incorrect, they should inform the author immediately. If similar evidence is presented about a published article, the editor-in-chief should take immediate action to promptly publish an amendment, return the previous item, state relevant issue or other related notes.
Authority
The ultimate authority and responsibility of the journal should be with the editor-in-chief. The editor-in-chief should respect the organization of the journal (including readers, authors, reviewers, editors, editorial board and publishers) and strive to ensure the integrity and honesty of the journal content and continuously improve its quality. The editor-in-chief should select the members of the editorial board including the editorial review board; Determine the rights and responsibilities of these individuals and evaluate their performance on a regular basis.
Performance
The editor-in-chief should outline the performance indicators of the journal. The journal should publish annual audits of acceptance rates, publication intervals, percentage of articles submitted for external review and evaluation, and other performance data. Performance metrics should be used to evaluate developments in reviewing and evaluating articles and publishing processes, thereby improving the journal's performance.
Ethical Charter for Reviewers
Reciprocal Communication
Evaluation is a professional activity for journals that provides the value of the whole profession and should be encouraged. Researchers who submit articles to the journal are generally expected to reciprocally accept the journal's invitation to review the articles.
Refusal and Rejection Right
It is necessary to refuse a request to evaluate an article according to the time or situation. For example, a reviewer who feels to have insufficient competence to review a research paper should refuse to evaluate the paper. Reviewers should refrain from evaluating the article if there is a potential conflict of interest. If reviewers are asked to evaluate an article that has already been reviewed and evaluated, they should inform the editor-in-chief of the details of the initial evaluation, unless it is clear that they are considering a re-evaluation request.
Double-Blind Review
The journal has a double-blind review process. Reviewers should refrain from evaluating articles for which they have already provided their written suggestions to the author in the original version. If reviewers know the identity of the author or co-author, they will naturally subject to refusal to review the article. Reviewers are also responsible for avoiding writing, saying, or doing anything that could reveal their identity to the author.
Conflict of Interest
As a rule, reviewers should refrain from evaluating articles that they consider to be in conflict of interest, whether common, financial, organizational or personal, or any other connection or affiliation with the companies, institutions or individuals associated with the articles. Reviewers who may have a conflict of interest in a particular article should specify that conflict to the editor-in-chief so that the editor-in-chief can determine the appropriate level of participation. An example of this is a situation where a reviewer has a similar article under review in the same or another journal or a similar research project being completed. Kindly bear in mind that under the double-blind review process, since the reviewers do not know the authors, the reviewers are unlikely to be aware of the conflict of interest of the authors; Therefore, they are not limited by these conflicts. If the reviewers become aware of such conflicts, they should inform the editor-in-chief of the journal.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviewers should evaluate articles objectively, impartially or fairly and professionally. Reviewrs should avoid personal bias in their recommendations and judgments.
Confidentiality
Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the evaluation process. It is important to recognize that the article is confidential. The reviewers should not discuss the article with anyone other than the editor-in-chief of the journal, nor should they share the information of the article with anyone without permission. If reviewers suspect a breach, they should confidentially inform the editor-in-chief and should not share their concerns with other sections until the official announcement of the journal.
Accuracy
In reviewing the article and making recommendations for the author(s), the reviewers should always keep in mind that the evaluation is effective in scientific judgment. The reviewers should be honest with the author based on their concerns about the article. Reviewers should adequately explain and support their scientific judgment, i.e., they should provide the editor-in-chief with sufficient detail and information to justify their advice to the author. The reviewers should not be bipolar, for example, on the one hand having very friendly and intimate evaluations of the author and on the other hand very negative evaluations in a private meeting with the editor-in-chief.
Promptness
Reviewers should act quickly in their evaluations and judgments. If the reviewers are unable to act within the allotted time limit (maximum one month), they should contact the editor-in-chief as soon as possible to extend the duration or to request to select a new reviewer.