Publication Ethics

Mebadi aims to adhere to the guidelines and core practices set forth by several organizations, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (joint statement by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, WAME). These guidelines and recommendations are designed to promote transparency, integrity, and best practices in scholarly publishing.

By adhering to these standards, the journal aims to ensure that the research it publishes is of high quality and meets the ethical standards of the scientific community.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES

A. Editors’ Principles and Responsibilities
1. Impartiality and Editorial Independence
Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts solely on the basis of scope, significance, and originality. Considerations such as authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, nationality, or political views do not influence editorial decisions. Decisions regarding correction or publication rest exclusively with the editorial board. Editors ensure that published works are original and contribute to the scientific field, researchers, and readers.
2. Independence
Editors hold full authority for accepting or rejecting manuscripts. The editor-in-chief ensures that no conflicts of interest arise among authors, editors, and reviewers. All editorial decisions are made independently of the publisher and journal owner. Incomplete or flawed research is rejected without any external influence.
3. Confidentiality
Information regarding the evaluation process of the submitted manuscripts is shared only with the corresponding author, reviewers, and editorial staff. Manuscripts are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process, and reviewer identities remain confidential.
4. Use of Information and Conflicts of Interest
Editors are not allowed to use unpublished material from submitted manuscripts in their own research unless there is explicit permission from the authors. Editors avoid conflicts of interest regarding any manuscript under consideration.
5. Publication Decision
All manuscripts are reviewed by at least two experts in the field. Decisions are based on validity, significance, reviewer reports, and legal conditions. Editors are responsible for exercising their authority to accept or reject manuscripts in a timely manner.
6. Ethical Concerns
Editors take appropriate measures when ethical issues arise regarding submitted or published manuscripts. Intellectual property rights and ethical standards are never compromised. Alleged violations are investigated in line with COPE guidelines; when necessary, corrections, retractions, or notices of concern may be published.
7. Collaboration with Journal Boards
Editorial board consists of editors, associate editors and section editors. The editorial board collaborates with the advisory board to ensure that editorial processes align with journal policies. Submissions are sent to editors, advisory board members, and reviewers appropriate to the field. The editorial board provides guidance to new members and facilitate communication on policy and development through regular meetings with the advisory board.
B. Authors’ Responsibilities
1. Data Access and Retention
Authors must retain the raw data of their study and make it available to editors upon request.
2. Reporting Standards
Authors are responsible for ensuring compliance with ethical standards, presenting findings accurately, and discussing their significance objectively. Manuscripts must include sufficient detail and references.
3. Originality and Plagiarism
Authors must submit original work. Proper citation is required for all use of others’ work. Misleading or incomplete information may not be provided in the use of data, citation, or referencing processes. Plagiarism in any form is unethical and unacceptable. A similarity report is requested for all submissions. Copyrighted materials (tables, figures, images, etc.) may be published only with appropriate permissions, and this is in the authors’ responsibility. The reference list must include only the sources cited in the work; all sources must be accurately and completely indicated both in the text and in the reference list.
4. Multiple or Redundant Submissions
Authors must declare that the manuscript is original and not under consideration elsewhere. Submitting the same work to more than one journal simultaneously, or works that are published / under consideration in another journal are unethical and unacceptable.
5. Authorship Criteria
(a) Only individuals who meet the following criteria may be listed as authors: contributing to the design, implementation, data collection, or analysis stages, preparing the manuscript or providing substantial intellectual contribution / critical revision; reviewing and approving the final version of the work; and agreeing to its submission for publication. The corresponding author must declare that all authors meet these criteria and have approved the submission. The order of authorship should be a joint decision.
(b) Individuals who do not meet the authorship criteria but have contributed to the work should be acknowledged in the “Acknowledgments/Information” section (e.g., technical support, writing assistance, financial or material support).
6. Declarations and Conflicts of Interest
Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest at the earliest possible stage. All sources of financial support used in the development of the work (including grant/fund numbers) must be declared.
7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works
When authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they are obliged to promptly notify the editors. Full cooperation must be provided with the editors to enable either correction or retraction of the work. The same obligation applies if errors are identified by third parties.

C. Reviewers’ Responsibilities
1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Reviewers assist editors in making sound decisions through their evaluations. They must promptly inform editors of any instances of copyright infringement, plagiarism, or other ethical violations.
2. Timeliness
Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the allotted time. If additional time is needed, an extension may be granted in line with the journal’s publication schedule. Reviewers who are unable to complete the evaluation or who consider themselves unsuitable for the task must notify the editor without delay, so that a replacement can be assigned.
3. Confidentiality
Reviewers acknowledge that the manuscripts sent to them are confidential and must treat all information accordingly. Unless authorized by the editor, no part of the manuscript may be shared with or discussed with third parties. This obligation also applies to reviewers who decline the invitation to review.
4. Standards of Objectivity
Reviewers must act with complete objectivity in their evaluations. Reviews should be scientific in nature and aimed primarily at helping the author improve the work. Reviewers should evaluate only the manuscript itself and not make comments on the author’s character or professional competence.
5. Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited. They must also notify the editor of any other works that bear a significant resemblance to the manuscript under review.
6. Conflicts of Interest
If a conflict of interest exists between the reviewer and any of the parties involved in the manuscript, the reviewer must immediately inform the editor and withdraw from the review process.