Publishing Practice of "PAYAM" has a certain ethical policy which has been developed keeping in view the COPE guidelines and HEC ethical guidelines for the research journals .Some key points of it are as follows:
Policy for the Editor(s):
Editor is wholly responsible to establish/maintain the quality of the journal.
He has full authority to accept or reject any research paper keeping in view the publishing policy of (PAYAM) or the standard of the topic/ material/ presentation/ references/
Language of the submitted paper and professional demands should as well.
Editor confirms the process of unseeing peer review of every paper.
Editor confirms the Plagiarism Check of every paper and strictly follows the HEC Plagiarism Policy regarding this matter.
Editor is assured to follow the journal's policy without any formal pressure.
Editor would provide corrigendum for any correction, clarification and apologies when required.
Editor may appoint Members of Editorial Board/ Advisory Board and amendment anytime.
Editor ensures smooth running of the journal and conducting the editorial board meeting on consistent basis.
Editor would neglect the discriminating factors, e.g. gender, religious belief, race, ethnicity, cultural sentiments, political affiliation, seniority and/or institutional association of the author(s) while selecting articles for publication.
Editor would try to punctually respond to the author (s) of the papers submitted for publishing, for any question.
Editor will not edit any submitted paper which would have any conflict of interest. He is responsible to ask the reviewers/evaluators also for disclosing any encounter of interest regarding the submitted research paper to ensure the neutrality.
Editor ensures the privacy of the content of manuscript prior to publishing at his and reviewer's end.
Policy for the Author(s)
An author (primary) is a person who has significantly authored the research paper. One who has contributed at some extent or helped out the author in write up should not be the writer.
Someone who has contributed particularly in any design, analysis etc. he can be recognized as co-author.
Writer would be fully responsible for the presented reading.
It is the writer(s)' responsibility to ensure that the research paper and data contain adequate details and references to the sources of information in order to allow others to reproduce the results. Fake or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are objectionable.
Writer(s) is required to provide an undertaking stating that the submitted script contains solely his original work and no material has been copied without reference from anyplace. If someone coauthors the paper then his contribution should be explicitly stated in that undertaking.
Article once submitted by the author to "PAYAM" will not be submitted to any other journal till the time he would have been conveyed about refusal from our side. Concurrent submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal is an unethical publishing conduct and it is highly objectionable.
If any query arises about the accuracy or validity of the research work during the review process, the author(s) should deliver raw data to the Editor.
The author(s) should disclose any conflict of interest at the earliest possible stage keeping in view the editorial and advisory board, consultancies, honoraria, patent applications/registrations, grants or other finance.
Writers are supposed to allow the journal while submitting the paper to reserve the right to circulate the research article.
Authors are supposed to bind with journal's policy when submitting a paper to "PAYAM".
The review procedure can last between one or two months or lengthier and during this period the writer(s) reserve the right to contact the Editor to ask about status of the review. In the case of rejection, the author(s) reserves the right to publish the article somewhere else. In case of revisions, the author(s) must provide an explanation of all corrections made in the manuscript. In case of dissatisfaction over the decision of rejection, the author can appeal the decision by communicating the Editor.
Policy for the Reviewer(s)
Review process allows the author(s) to improve their manuscript through editorial communications. Scholars/Reviewers accepting to review a research paper have an ethical responsibility to complete this assignment professionally. The quality, credibility and reputation of a journal also depends on the peer review process. The peer review process trust on the reliance, and demands that a reviewer is supposed to fulfill ethically. The reviewers should:
Immediately inform the editor if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review.
It is their modest responsibility to punctually submit review report on time. They should immediately inform the editor of some possible delays.
The data comprised in the research paper is confidential and the reviewer is not allowed to use if for his personal study or professional purpose or any other academic.
Reviewers would consider the research paper as a confidential document. They must not discuss its content on any platform except in cases where professional advice is being sought with the approval of the editor. They are bound not to disclose the details of any research paper prior to its publication.
A reviewer must declare any conflicting interests (e.g. political or religious personal, financial, intellectual, professional). He should declare if the research paper under review is the same as to his presently conducted learning.
A reviewer should be truthful enough to declare if He is biased at any level towards the manuscript submitted.
The reviewer may reasonably criticize a manuscript but it would be unsuitable to resort to personal criticism on the writer(s). He is made-up to objectively carry out the review with a consideration of high academic, scholarly and scientific standards.
Reviewer should brought into the editor's notice, before writing the evaluation report, if the research paper is based on any previous research study or is copy of an earlier work, or the work is plagiarized. Moreover if the reviewer suspects the given results to be untrue/fake/ unre
alistic, all these points should also be identified to the editor.
For writing an evaluation report, reviewers are sent prescribed form(s) from the editor and they are supposed to share their comments on that form.
The editor will surely consider reviewer's comments and may send the paper to someone else for another opinion or send it back to the author(s) for revision before making any decision. But it is very clear that the final decision about publishing a research paper (either accept or reject) will only rest with the editor. A reviewer cannot challenge the decision of the editor at any forum.