Publication Ethics and Editorial Responsibilities
This journal adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work. We strongly encourage authors to consult these recommendations before submitting a manuscript.
When research misconduct, fraud, or plagiarism is suspected, the editors will act in line with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance and reserve the right to contact the authors and/or their institution(s), when appropriate.
Allegations of Misconduct
The journal’s ethical standards are grounded in the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Readers, authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to comply with these ethical requirements throughout their interaction with the journal. Additional information on publication ethics is available at publicationethics.org.
All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial assessment by consulting editors to confirm that the subject fits the journal’s scope and that the submission complies with format requirements and word limits. Submissions are also evaluated for originality, scientific rigor, clarity of presentation, and conciseness. Before entering double-blind peer review, manuscripts are screened for potential plagiarism, and authors are required to submit a Competing Financial Interests Declaration on behalf of all co-authors.
Manuscripts that proceed to peer review are assigned to an Associate Editor, who selects suitable reviewers and provides recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editorial Review Board serves as a primary pool of qualified reviewers. The Associate Editors and Editorial Review Board include experienced researchers representing diverse areas. Because peer-reviewed literature underpins the scientific method, clear expectations of ethical conduct are required from all parties involved in publishing, including authors, editors, and reviewers.
Obligations of Editors
The Editor-in-Chief and associate editors are responsible for ensuring an efficient, impartial, and rigorous evaluation process and for maintaining high professional and technical standards. Editorial assessment prioritizes originality of ideas, concepts and/or applications, depth, and relevance to the journal’s aim and scope.
Editors must evaluate manuscripts fairly and solely on their academic merit, without being influenced by personal relationships with authors, or by the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, citizenship, professional affiliation, or political views.
Editors and editorial staff must keep manuscripts under consideration confidential and must not share information with anyone other than individuals involved in providing professional input for editorial decisions. Reviewer identities are not disclosed by the editors or editorial staff.
If an editor is an author or co-author of a manuscript submitted to the journal, that editor must not participate in the handling or assessment of the submission. If the editor-author’s published work becomes the subject of debate, the editor-author will not hold editorial responsibility for that discussion.
Editors must avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts. Editors should not invite reviewers who are known to have biases for or against the authors or the topic. Any unpublished content in a submitted manuscript is confidential and must not be used by editors for their own research or shared in any form without the author’s consent and proper attribution.
If credible evidence indicates that a published article contains errors in its substance, conclusions, references, or other material, the editor will notify the authors, allow them to respond, and facilitate prompt publication of an erratum.
Where feasible, the editor will also support publication of comments or articles that clarify or identify the error. If strong evidence is presented that a manuscript or published paper includes plagiarism or fabricated/falsified data, the editor will forward the documentation to the appropriate authority.
Obligations of Authors
Authors have a duty to provide an accurate, clear, and concise report of the completed study, project, or work, along with an objective discussion of its importance. Submissions must include sufficient methodological detail and references to publicly available sources so that other researchers can replicate the work or verify its accuracy.
Authors must appropriately cite prior literature that shaped the reported work, enabling readers to locate essential earlier studies needed to understand the current research. Information obtained privately through conversations, correspondence, or discussion must not be used or reported without explicit permission from the source. Information accessed through confidential roles, such as peer review or evaluation of grant applications, must be treated as confidential. Manuscripts must not contain plagiarized material or fabricated/falsified data.
Unnecessary fragmentation of research should be avoided. When a broader investigation produces multiple outputs, authors should organize publications so that each manuscript provides a complete account of a specific aspect of the overall study. Authors must not submit more than one manuscript describing essentially the same study or project to multiple journals simultaneously.
Academic critique of published work may be appropriate, but personal criticism is never acceptable. To preserve the integrity of authorship, only individuals who made meaningful contributions to the research and manuscript preparation should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author confirms that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version and have agreed to submission. Deceased contributors who meet authorship criteria should be included with a footnote indicating the date of death. Fictitious names must not be used. By submitting a manuscript, authors accept responsibility for listing all and only those who qualify as authors.
Manuscripts submitted primarily for obvious commercial purposes are not appropriate. Authors should not write or co-author a Discussion of their own paper, except when responding to criticism (e.g., a rebuttal or closure) or addressing discussion raised by others.
Obligations of Reviewers
Because qualified peer review is essential to the publication process, reviewers are expected to contribute fairly to reviewing activities. Reviewers who feel they lack the expertise to assess the manuscript, or who cannot review it within a reasonable timeframe, should return the manuscript promptly to the editor.
Reviews must be conducted objectively and based on the manuscript’s scholarly merit. Reviewers must respect the intellectual independence of authors, and personal criticism is not acceptable. Reviewers must avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts. If a conflict exists or if personal bias is present, the reviewer should decline the review and inform the editor.
All material received for review must be treated as confidential. Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations in the manuscript must not be used in the reviewer’s own research or shared with others without author consent and appropriate attribution. If reviewers seek advice from others, this should be limited to what is necessary and the identities of those consulted must be disclosed to the editor.
Reviewers should provide clear, supported comments so that editors and authors can understand the basis for the recommendations. Claims that certain observations or arguments have been reported previously must be supported with appropriate citations.
Reviewers should alert the editor to any substantial similarity between the manuscript and existing publications or to any known simultaneous submissions. If a reviewer has convincing evidence of plagiarism or fabricated/falsified data, the reviewer must notify the editor.
Authorship and Contributorship
The journal applies the authorship principles and guidance established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Authorship should accurately reflect individuals’ substantial intellectual contributions to the work, and all listed authors must have participated meaningfully in the research and publication process.
Authorship is limited to those who have made a significant contribution to at least one or more of the following areas: the conception or design of the study; the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the development of the intellectual content of the manuscript through drafting or critical revision.
All authors must approve the final version of the manuscript prior to publication and must agree to take public responsibility for the integrity of the work. This includes a shared accountability for ensuring that any questions related to the accuracy, originality, or ethical integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged appropriately but should not be listed as authors.
Publishing ethics issues
All editorial members, reviewers, and authors are expected to comply with COPE guidance.
The corresponding author is the primary contact for the article and may request withdrawal when the submission is incomplete (before peer review begins or while revisions are requested).
After acceptance, major changes to the manuscript are not permitted without a valid and serious reason.
Editors and authors are expected to support honest, complete, and timely publication of corrections when required.
Complaints Process
Authors are encouraged to review all journal guidelines and policies before submission.
Authors and other scholars may submit a complaint or request clarification if they believe there has been misconduct or a breach of policy. Complaints should be submitted in writing to editorial@diginomics.ar.
All complaints concerning delays or irregularities in processes are examined according to accepted publication ethics practices.
Complaints may relate to, but are not limited to: Plagiarism; Copyright infringement; Misrepresentation or deception in research results; Failure to comply with research standards; Undisclosed conflicts of interest; Bias in the review process; Unusually long processing times; Unsatisfactory peer-review comments; Authorship disputes
Policy for dealing with complaints
Upon receiving a complaint, the journal will send an acknowledgement within three working days (excluding the date of receipt) and confirm that appropriate action will be taken. The editorial team will initiate an investigation under the direction of the Editor-in-Chief. Once the review is completed, the matter will be discussed with a full report and a decision will be communicated to the complainant via email.
If the complainant considers the initial response inadequate, the complaint may be escalated to a more senior team member. If dissatisfaction continues, the complaint may be escalated to an executive editor and finally to the Editor-in-Chief, whose decision is final. If the complainant remains dissatisfied after a definitive response, they may raise the matter with an external body.
Complaints that fall outside the control of the journal’s editorial staff may be referred to the relevant responsible units within Razavi Hospital Publication. All complaints are addressed politely, promptly, and with due care.
Conflict of Interest Statement
In line with COPE guidance, a conflict of interest exists when a financial or personal relationship involving authors, reviewers, editors, or editorial board members could influence, or be perceived to influence, their role in the peer review and publication process.
Any actual or potential conflicts of interest related to a manuscript must be fully disclosed at the time of submission in accordance with the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal assesses and manages disclosed conflicts transparently using established COPE procedures to ensure the integrity and independence of editorial decisions.
A conflict of interest includes any situation that affects, or could reasonably be viewed as affecting, the accurate presentation of research, the objectivity of review, editorial decisions, or publication of research or non-research content. Conflicts may involve financial or non-financial factors and may relate to individuals or organizations.
All authors must declare conflicts of interest in the cover letter and in the “Conflicts of Interest” section of the manuscript. If no conflicts exist, authors should state: “The author or authors declare that they have no conflict of interest with respect to the authorship or publication of this article.” The editor may request additional information when needed.
Editors and reviewers must also declare conflicts and will be excluded from the review process if conflicts exist. Transparent disclosure is essential; failure to disclose conflicts may lead to rejection. If conflicts are discovered after publication, the journal will take action according to COPE guidance.
Conflict of financial interests may include (but is not limited to):
Receiving funds, reimbursements, budgets, salaries, or other payments from an organization that may benefit from publication, now or in the future.
Holding ownership (stocks, shares, inventory) in an organization that may gain or lose financially from the publication.
Holding or pursuing patents related to the content of the submitted work.
Receiving reimbursement or payment from an organization that owns or holds patents connected to the manuscript.
Copyright and License
Authors publishing in the journal retain full copyright of their work. Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which allows use, sharing, redistribution, and adaptation of the content, provided that appropriate attribution is given to the original authors and source.
Any questions or requests concerning licensing conditions or uses not explicitly covered by this license must be addressed to the editorial office at editorial@diginomics.ar.
Publication misconduct
The journal actively works to identify and prevent publication misconduct through peer review and editorial screening. Reviewers and editors are encouraged to check for:
Plagiarism: ensuring proper citation and originality, supported by routine checks and tools.
Fabrication: assessing whether data may have been invented and requesting clarification or raw data when necessary.
Falsification: checking for signs of manipulation in methods, analyses, or reported findings.
Citation manipulation: evaluating excessive self-citation, excessive citation to one journal, or irrelevant citations.
Peer review manipulation: verifying reviewer suitability and monitoring reviewer performance.
Authorship misconduct: applying the journal’s authorship and contributorship policy.
Software tools
The journal uses plagiarism detection software, including Turnitin and iThenticate, to screen all submitted manuscripts as a standard part of the editorial evaluation process. Every submission is checked for originality prior to peer review and, when necessary, at additional stages of the publication process, under the supervision of the editorial team.
Corrections, Retractions and Concern
This publication follows internationally recognized standards of publication ethics and applies the principles, guidance, and procedures established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
The journal is committed to preserving the integrity of the scholarly record for all manuscripts under consideration and all published content. When a material error, misleading statement, or inaccurate or distorted presentation is identified, the record will be corrected promptly and in a clearly visible manner. If, following a proper investigation, a publication is found to be unreliable due to serious error or misconduct, the article will be retracted. Retractions are clearly identified to readers and to indexing and abstracting services.
Corrections
Errors in published articles may be addressed through the publication of a correction, such as a corrigendum or erratum, when the Editor-in-Chief determines that it is necessary to inform readers and amend the published record. Corrections are issued as separate items, clearly linked to and citing the original article, and specifying the nature of the correction.
Retractions
Retractions are issued when major errors invalidate the findings or conclusions of an article, or when there is evidence of publication malpractice, including plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, or unethical research practices.
In line with international best practice and COPE guidance, when a retraction is confirmed the following steps are applied:
- A retraction notice entitled “Retraction: [Article Title]”, signed by the author(s) and/or the editor, is published in a subsequent issue and included in the table of contents.
- In the electronic version, a clear and permanent link is established between the retraction notice and the original article.
- Access to the online article is preceded by a screen displaying the retraction notice, ensuring that readers are informed before viewing the content.
- The original article remains available to preserve the scholarly record but is clearly marked as retracted, including visible identification (such as a watermark) on all HTML and PDF pages.
Editorial expressions of concern
When substantial concerns arise regarding the reliability or integrity of a submitted or published article, editors may issue an editorial expression of concern. This measure is used when an investigation does not reach a definitive conclusion but there are strong indications that the concerns may be valid. In exceptional cases, an expression of concern may also be issued while an investigation is ongoing if a final decision is expected to take a significant amount of time. Any expression of concern will be clearly linked to the article to which it refers.
Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections
Questions, concerns, or complaints regarding the technical accuracy, clarity, completeness, or quality of a published article should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief. For ethical concerns, the Complaints and Appeals process also applies.
Queries should include:
Title, authors, and issue number of the article
Role of the person reporting (author, reader, or other)
Brief description of the concern
Links or evidence supporting the claim
For concerns that may affect the reliability of the work, the editor will begin an investigation and may involve original authors and reviewers when necessary. The journal aims to complete investigations within 60 days. Possible outcomes include:
No change
Correction: updating the article and issuing a correction notice
Retraction: removing galleys, adding a retraction notice with reasons, and issuing a retraction notice in the next issue
Significant corrections may undergo peer review as required by journal policy. Retraction decisions follow COPE Retraction Guidelines.
Reporting
Concerns about breaches of ethical oversight should be reported to the Editor-in-Chief through the Complaints and Appeals process to the mail editorial@diginomics.ar.
Investigations
Ethics concerns raised before or after publication, including research ethics issues, should be reported to the journal’s Research Integrity team. The identity of claimants will be kept confidential. The journal may request underlying data or images, consult editors, and contact institutions or employers to request investigations or raise concerns.
Journal Management
The journal maintains a transparent and well-defined infrastructure, including its business model, policies, processes, and software, to ensure efficient operation of an editorially independent journal.
The journal seeks to ensure that everyone involved in the editorial process receives appropriate training and remains informed about current standards and evidence related to peer review and journal management.
The journal management aims to uphold ethical practice and transparency in journal operations and in the work of the editorial board, authors, and reviewers. The management also provides financial support necessary to preserve the journal’s independence.
Appeals
If an author or reporter disagrees with an Editor-in-Chief decision, an appeal may be submitted. The Editor-in-Chief may convene an ad hoc Appeals Committee consisting of the Editor-in-Chief (chair) and four editorial board members. The committee reviews the appeal and issues a decision by majority vote within 60 days.