Editorial Policy

This Editorial Policy sets out the principles and procedures governing the editorial management, peer review, ethical oversight, and decision-making practices of Iranian Journal of Health Research and Development (Iran J Health Res Dev). It is intended to ensure transparency, fairness, academic integrity, and consistency in the handling of all submitted manuscripts in accordance with accepted standards of scholarly publishing.

1. Editorial Principles

The journal is committed to maintaining high standards of editorial quality, scientific integrity, and ethical publishing. Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly merit of a manuscript, its methodological rigor, ethical compliance, originality, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

The journal is guided by the following editorial principles:

• editorial independence and academic integrity;

• fairness, objectivity, and confidentiality in peer review;

• transparency in editorial and publication processes;

• respect for research and publication ethics;

• prevention of publication misconduct; and

• commitment to publishing reliable, relevant, and methodologically sound research.

Editorial decisions are made without discrimination based on the authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, religion, or political beliefs.

2. Scope-Based Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts are initially assessed by the editorial office and/or the Editor-in-Chief to determine whether they are suitable for consideration by the journal. At this stage, manuscripts are evaluated for:

• relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;

• scientific and scholarly relevance;

• originality and potential contribution to the field;

• compliance with the journal’s submission requirements and formatting standards;

• clarity of presentation and language quality; and

• the presence of required ethical and disclosure statements, where applicable.

Manuscripts that are outside the journal’s scope, do not meet the journal’s basic editorial standards, or fail to comply with submission requirements may be declined before external peer review.

3. Peer Review Policy

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are considered for external peer review. The journal uses a double-anonymized peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during review, as far as possible within the journal’s editorial workflow.

Submissions selected for peer review are normally sent to at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, evidence-based, and constructive comments on the manuscript’s scientific quality, methodology, interpretation, originality, ethical conduct, and relevance to the journal.

The peer review process is intended to support editorial decision-making and to help ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly work.

4. Initial Editorial Screening

Before a manuscript is sent for peer review, it may undergo an editorial screening to assess:

• conformity with the journal’s aims and scope;

• overall scientific relevance and originality;

• adherence to author guidelines and submission requirements;

• language clarity and readability;

• completeness of ethical approval, informed consent, funding, and conflict of interest disclosures where required; and

• potential concerns related to similarity, redundant publication, or other publication integrity issues.

The editorial office may return a manuscript to the authors for technical correction before peer review or may decline the manuscript if it is not considered suitable for further evaluation.

5. Criteria for Editorial Decision-Making

Editorial decisions are made on the basis of a combination of editorial assessment and peer review reports. In reaching a decision, the editors consider:

• originality and contribution to knowledge;

• methodological quality and scientific validity;

• relevance to the journal’s aims, scope, and readership;

• adequacy of analysis, interpretation, and reporting;

• compliance with ethical standards in research and publication;

• clarity, structure, and academic quality of the manuscript; and

• the comments and recommendations provided by reviewers.

Editorial decisions are not influenced by commercial interests, institutional pressure, or non-scholarly considerations.

6. Editorial Decisions

Following editorial evaluation and peer review, one of the following decisions may be made:

• Accept

• Minor Revision

• Major Revision

• Reject

The final decision on all manuscripts rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor.

7. Editorial Independence

The Editor-in-Chief and editorial team are responsible for editorial decisions and for the management of peer review in accordance with scholarly and ethical standards. Editorial decisions are made independently and are based solely on academic and editorial considerations.

Any manuscript submitted by an editor, editorial board member, or an individual with a close professional relationship to a member of the editorial team should be handled independently by another qualified editor in order to avoid conflicts of interest and maintain the integrity of the editorial process.

8. Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise, academic qualifications, and ability to provide an informed and unbiased evaluation of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to:

• maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and review process;

• disclose any conflict of interest that could affect their judgment;

• decline the review invitation if they are unable to provide an objective or timely assessment;

• provide constructive, respectful, and evidence-based comments; and

• alert the editors to relevant ethical concerns, substantial similarity with other work, or important published literature not cited by the authors.

9. Authorship and Contributor Responsibility

All listed authors should have made a meaningful scholarly contribution to the work and should approve the submitted and accepted versions of the manuscript. Authors are responsible for the integrity, accuracy, and originality of the work they submit.

The corresponding author is responsible for communication with the journal during the submission, review, and publication process and for ensuring that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the manuscript and consented to its submission.

10. Research Ethics Requirements

Manuscripts reporting research involving human participants, identifiable personal data, human materials, or animals must comply with relevant ethical standards and applicable institutional and national regulations. Where applicable, authors should provide:

• the name of the approving ethics committee or institutional review board;

• approval code or reference number, if available;

• a statement regarding informed consent for human participants, where relevant; and

• confirmation of compliance with ethical standards for animal research, where applicable.

The journal may request additional documentation during editorial assessment if ethical clarification is needed.

11. Publication Ethics and Research Integrity

The journal is committed to safeguarding the integrity of the scholarly record and does not tolerate research or publication misconduct. This includes, but is not limited to:

• plagiarism;

• data fabrication or falsification;

• duplicate submission or redundant publication;

• inappropriate authorship practices;

• citation manipulation;

• undisclosed conflicts of interest;

• unethical research conduct; or

• deliberate misrepresentation of data, methods, or findings.

Where concerns arise before or after publication, the journal may request clarification from the authors, seek supporting documentation, conduct editorial review of the case, and take appropriate action when necessary.

12. Similarity Checking

Submitted manuscripts may be screened for textual similarity as part of the editorial assessment process. Manuscripts showing substantial overlap with previously published or submitted work, without appropriate citation, explanation, or editorial justification, may be rejected or returned to the authors for clarification.

13. Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to disclose any financial, institutional, professional, or personal relationships that could influence—or reasonably be perceived to influence—their objectivity or judgment.

• Authors should disclose relevant conflicts of interest in the manuscript or during submission.

• Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts if they have a conflict of interest that may compromise an objective evaluation.

• Editors should recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest and assign the manuscript to another qualified editor.

14. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, discuss, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal, academic, or professional advantage. Information regarding a manuscript is shared only with those directly involved in the editorial and peer review process, as required for evaluation and publication.

15. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may contact the editorial office to appeal an editorial decision or raise a complaint concerning the editorial process. Appeals and complaints should be submitted in writing and should clearly explain the academic or procedural basis of the request.

The journal will review such matters through an appropriate editorial process. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

16. Corrections, Retractions, and Post-Publication Updates

When necessary, the journal may publish corrections, errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern, or retractions in order to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record. Such actions may be taken in cases involving major error, unreliable findings, ethical concerns, or evidence of publication misconduct.

17. Commitment to Editorial Quality

The journal is committed to the continuous improvement of its editorial processes in order to promote fairness, transparency, timeliness, and scientific rigor in manuscript evaluation and publication. Through these editorial standards, the journal seeks to support the publication of reliable and relevant scholarly work within its stated aims and scope.