The ethical policy of The Journal of Islamic Law Research (ILRJ) is founded on the principles and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal adheres not only to COPE’s general principles on publication ethics but also to its standards regarding publication malpractice statements, including procedures for addressing ethical breaches and misconduct. Readers, authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to uphold these ethical principles in all interactions with the journal. Authors must ensure that their submissions are original, unpublished in any language, and compliant with all applicable copyright laws and conventions. Any form of plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or unethical research practice constitutes malpractice and is strictly unacceptable.
Download COPE Flowcharts
| Publisher Responsibilities |
- The publisher should ensure that editorial decisions on manuscript submissions are final and based solely on professional judgment, unaffected by any commercial interests. Furthermore, the publisher is responsible for monitoring the ethics of the Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board Members, Reviewers, Authors, and Readers.
- The publisher is always prepared to publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions involving its publications as necessary.
- The Dean of the Faculty of Islamic Studies and Law at Imam Sadiq University will serve as the Publisher’s Representative of the journal and act as the executive representative of the publisher in fulfilling these duties. To maintain strict editorial independence, the Publisher's Representative does not interfere with editorial decisions. Similarly, Language Editors have no involvement in the editorial decision-making process. The Editor-in-Chief holds the final responsibility for the acceptance or rejection of all submissions.
| Editorial Board Responsibilities |
- The Editor-in-Chief must have full authority to reject or accept a manuscript. The Editorial Board and staff should maintain the strict confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and preserve the anonymity of both reviewers and authors in line with the journal’s double-blind review policy. They must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and authorized editorial staff. Additionally, the Editorial Board is responsible for disclosing and striving to avoid any conflicts of interest. They should be prepared to investigate issues of plagiarism and fraudulent data, and issue corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when necessary.
- The Deputy Editor serves as a liaison between the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board. While they may assist in overseeing the peer review workflow and provide preliminary recommendations based on reviewers' reports, the Deputy Editor, like any other editor, does not have the authority to make final editorial decisions. The ultimate responsibility for the acceptance or rejection of any manuscript rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief.
- The Editorial Manager oversees the administrative and operational workflow of the journal. Their duties include managing manuscript assignments within the journal's online system, coordinating editorial staff meetings, and facilitating communications with international indexing databases. The Editorial Manager is strictly an administrative role with absolutely no involvement in manuscript evaluation or editorial decision-making. Like all editorial staff, the Editorial Manager is strictly bound by the journal's confidentiality policies regarding all submitted materials.
Download the COPE Guideline
| Reviewers' Responsibilities |
- Reviewers must observe confidentiality regarding the information of articles in all respects. The review process should be conducted anonymously.
- Reviewers are expected to assess articles in a timely manner and assist the Editor-in-Chief in making decisions about whether to accept or reject an article. Suggestions from reviewers about submitted manuscripts should be communicated through review forms and in the comment section designated for the author and editor.
- Reviewers must abstain from evaluating articles in which they have a conflict of interest and should report any potential conflicts as soon as they are recognized. Their assessments regarding the quality and content of articles must be based on professional and objective opinions.
Download the COPE Guideline
- To qualify for authorship of submitted manuscripts, contributors must meet the following conditions:
-
- The author has contributed to the conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data.
- The author has either drafted the article or critically revised it for important intellectual content.
- The author has given final approval of the version to be published. Each contributor should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
- The corresponding author is responsible for communicating with the journal and ensuring that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript. However, all authors share collective responsibility and accountability for the integrity and content of the work.
Download the COPE Guideline
| Authors’ Responsibilities |
- Authors must adhere to the foundational principles of writing and research when composing articles, ensuring their work is formatted according to the journal's guidelines. Prior to submission on the ILRJ website, all authors are required to familiarize themselves with the authors' guide and the terms and conditions for article submission to this journal. The corresponding author is tasked with confirming and submitting the consent and awareness of all co-authors regarding the article's publication via the authors' commitment form.
- Every author listed in the article and the commitment form must have contributed to the writing and preparation of the article. Acknowledgments and organizational affiliations of the authors should be clearly stated, and any conflicts of interest between authors or organizations must be disclosed.
- To support the sustainability and development of the specialized review process, qualified authors are encouraged to participate in reviewing other articles submitted to this journal. Authors are obligated to disclose the sponsor of their research, if any. Should authors discover an error or inaccuracy in their published article, they must inform the Editor-in-Chief as soon as possible to arrange for the correction or retraction of the article.
- It is important for authors to know that submissions to this journal undergo a similarity check to prevent scientific misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication, and data falsification. Authors are expected to accurately and appropriately cite all sources, both directly and indirectly used.
- Throughout the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process, the corresponding author serves as the primary contact with the journal, ensuring all administrative requirements — such as authorship details, ethics committee approvals, clinical trial registration documents, and conflict of interest disclosures — are properly addressed. The corresponding author should also promptly respond to editorial inquiries and cooperate with any post-publication requests from the journal.
- Regarding Changes of Authorship: After an article has been accepted for publication in the journal, additions, deletions, or changes to the order of authors are generally not permitted. However, in exceptional cases, any request for an alteration to the author list (including removal or reordering) must be directed to the Editor-in-Chief and accompanied by a letter signed by every author, indicating their unanimous consent and explaining the reason for the change, strictly in accordance with COPE flowcharts.
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) can serve as a valuable auxiliary tool for researchers, facilitating and accelerating research processes. However, its use must be accompanied by transparency, accountability, and adherence to scientific ethics. Improper use of such tools may lead to issues such as plagiarism, publication of inaccurate information, or infringement of intellectual property rights.
- General Principles:
- Adherence to Scientific Ethics: The use of GenAI must not result in academic misconduct, such as plagiarism.
- No Authorship for AI: AI tools do not qualify for authorship under any circumstances, as they cannot take legal or public responsibility for the research.
- Transparency: All instances of GenAI use must be clearly and accurately disclosed in the paper.
- Legal and Ethical Accountability: The user of GenAI is fully responsible for the final content and results generated.
- Non-Replacement of Human Agency: GenAI serves only as an auxiliary tool and should not replace critical thinking, creativity, or researcher responsibility.
- Protection of Privacy and Data Security: The use of GenAI must not lead to the disclosure of personal or confidential information, especially sensitive data.
- Operational Recommendations for Authors: The use of GenAI tools during various stages of research is permissible, provided that the following conditions are met:
- The source of the tool (tool name, version, and date of use) must be explicitly stated in the Methodology section, rather than the reference list.
- Outputs generated by GenAI must be reviewed, double-checked, validated, and scientifically confirmed before use.
- Only tools that ensure data security and privacy protection should be utilized.
- If GenAI is used as an auxiliary tool, it must be stated as follows: “Section X was generated with the assistance of this AI tool.”
- Prohibited Uses of GenAI Tools:
- In the Context of Content Generation:
- Using GenAI outputs directly without review or validation.
- Using GenAI to generate key parts of the research (e.g., data, main findings, discussion, or conclusion) without genuine researcher involvement.
- Using GenAI instead of proper quotation or citation (i.e., hidden references leading to plagiarism).
- Using GenAI to generate non-factual or fictitious references.
- In the Context of Data Analysis:
- Citing GenAI-generated analytical results without validation and scientific confirmation.
- Using GenAI to perform statistical tests without sufficient knowledge of the underlying methods and limitations.
- Using GenAI to manipulate original data or to generate synthetic data.
- In the Context of Image or Diagram Generation:
- Using GenAI-generated images in research results without citing the source.
- Presenting GenAI-generated images as the final output of an observation or experiment.
- Using GenAI-generated visuals in a way that misleads the reader.
- In the Context of Privacy and Security:
- Inputting personal or confidential data into online or insecure GenAI tools.
- Using GenAI tools without ensuring compliance with data privacy regulations.
- Using GenAI tools that violate national or institutional legal standards.
- Authors’ Responsibility in Using GenAI: GenAI tools must always be used as auxiliary resources under the supervision and full responsibility of the researcher. Accordingly:
- Researcher’s Ultimate Responsibility for Content: The researcher is responsible for the scientific accuracy, logical coherence, and ethical compliance of any content generated with GenAI assistance.
- Non-Transfer of Responsibility to the Machine: GenAI cannot comprehend scientific, ethical, or social concepts. Final decision-making, interpretation, and validation remain the researcher’s duty.
- Accountability for Ethical and Scientific Breaches: In case of ethical breaches, scientific errors, or legal issues arising from GenAI use, all authors share collective responsibility, regardless of which author utilized the tool.
- Awareness of Tool Limitations: Researchers must be aware of the limitations of GenAI tools (e.g., potential biases, factual errors, or unreliable sources) and use them cautiously.
- Operational Recommendations for Editors and Reviewers:
- Responsibilities of Editors/Reviewers:
- Review the declared use of GenAI in manuscripts and, if not disclosed, request clarification.
- Ensure that GenAI use does not result in violations of scientific ethics.
- When the credibility of GenAI-generated content is in doubt, request supporting sources or additional review.
- Avoid bias against or in favor of GenAI use, provided that it is conducted properly and ethically.
- Prohibited Uses of GenAI in Editing/Review:
- Uploading the full text of manuscripts into GenAI systems.
- Using GenAI in place of professional scientific review or supervision.
- Relying entirely on GenAI analyses or opinions regarding article quality.
- Using GenAI for ethical or novelty evaluation without human verification.
- Method of Referencing and Citing GenAI Use in Articles:
- Citing GenAI Use in Articles
- Methodology Section: Explain how GenAI was used in data collection, analysis, design tools, or text drafting.
- Research Ethics Section: Confirm compliance with GenAI ethical principles outlined in these guidelines and note that privacy and confidentiality standards were upheld.
- In-Text Citation Examples
- If GenAI was used as an auxiliary tool, cite it in the text as follows:
- “This section/image/... was generated with the assistance of the [Tool Name] tool on [Date of Generation/Use].”
- Example: “This introduction was generated with the assistance of the ChatGPT [Version 4] tool on 10/17/2023, and subsequently reviewed, supplemented, and edited by the researcher(s).”
- For GenAI-generated images or diagrams, include the source in the caption or title:
-
- Example: “This image was generated using the Midjourney v5 tool.”
- Declaration in the Methodology: Specifications of the GenAI tools used must not be included in the Reference List. Instead, they should be detailed in the Methodology section.
| Principles of Transparency |
-
- Study Design and Ethical Approval: Good research must be well-justified, well-planned, appropriately designed, and ethically approved. Conducting research to a lower standard may be considered misconduct. Authors are responsible for the entire scientific content, including the accuracy of the bibliographic information.
- Data Analysis: Data should be analyzed appropriately. While inappropriate analysis does not necessarily constitute misconduct, fabrication and falsification of data do.
- Data Availability: A data availability statement should explain how readers can access the data supporting the study's conclusions and clearly state why any unavailable data cannot be released. Where applicable, data should preferably be deposited in public repositories, or otherwise made available by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
- Human and Animal Studies: Manuscripts reporting experimental investigations with human subjects must include a statement of informed consent obtained from each subject or the subject’s guardian. Approval from a relevant ethics committee is required for all human or animal studies.
- Conflicts of Interest: Conflicts of interest may not always be fully apparent and can influence the judgment of authors, reviewers, and editors. They are conditions that could lead a reasonable reader to feel misled or deceived if revealed after publication and can be personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial.
- Peer Review: This journal employs double-blind peer review, concealing the identities of both reviewers and authors throughout the process. Authors are required to prepare their manuscripts in a way that does not reveal their identity. They have the right to request the exclusion of certain reviewers due to potential conflicts of interest. Final decisions regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rest solely with the Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewers' evaluations and editorial assessment. The peer review process and related policies are clearly described on the journal's website.
- Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: The journal is committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript’s scientific merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope, without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, or institutional affiliation.
Conflicts of Interest Policy
|
- In accordance with the guidelines and discussion documents provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), our journal adheres to the following strict policy regarding the declaration and management of competing interests.
- Definition of Competing Interests
- A conflict of interest (or competing interest) is defined as a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, whether financial or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization.
- The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the actual occurrence of any impropriety.
- Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal, and can arise in relationship to an organization or another person.
- These interests may arise in the conduct of the research itself, and a competing interest is considered to be anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of submitted articles.
- Responsibilities and Declarations
- Editors are required to have systems in place for managing their own conflicts of interest, as well as those of their staff, authors, reviewers, and Editorial Board members.
- The journal's competing interest policy is appropriately managed by senior staff at the journal.
- Declarations of competing interests are handled as a separate step in the submission or review process. To ensure this, the journal mandates that corresponding authors complete, sign, and upload a comprehensive "Cover Letter & Author Declarations Form" during the initial submission.
- The journal maintains a strict editorial policy regarding transparency. If an author explicitly declares a conflict of interest or specific funding in the mandatory Declarations Form, or if such a conflict is discovered subsequently, a corresponding statement will be explicitly generated and published immediately preceding the reference list of the finalized article.
- Editors must explicitly declare their own competing interests (if any) when they publish in their own journal.
- Authors must also disclose any in-kind support they received, such as administrative assistance, literature searching support, legal translation services, or access to proprietary archival documents, to provide transparency even if it is not in itself a competing interest.
- Handling Competing Interests and Post-Publication Actions
- Ideally, issues relating to competing interests are handled before publication, during the review process of the journal.
- Declared competing interests (if any) will be clearly and consistently disclosed in all published papers.
- The journal has specific processes in place for handling the reporting of competing interests that come to light during the publication process (e.g., from reviewers) or after publication (e.g., from readers or anonymous whistleblowers).
- If a previously undeclared competing interest is found after publication, a letter to the editor simply noting the conflict is not sufficient.
- The journal will ensure that any previously undeclared competing interest is appropriately documented through a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction that is permanently linked to the version of record.
- An expression of concern or a retraction is required if a thorough investigation reveals that, as a result of the competing interest, the paper's findings or conclusions were compromised to the extent that they became unreliable.
- Examples of undeclared competing interests that will lead to a correction of a published paper include: financial payments or grants made to authors to conduct a commissioned legal research project, a close professional or personal relationship between an author and an editor that comes to light after publication (e.g., the author was a doctoral student under the editor's academic supervision three years previously), or an undeclared commercial consultancy or legislative advisory role related to the subject of the paper that was undertaken during the peer-review process.
Editorial Board as Authors
|
- In accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), it is a natural and recognized practice for Editorial Board members to submit manuscripts to their own journals, particularly within specialized academic disciplines. The Journal of Islamic Law Research (ILRJ) welcomes such submissions; however, to maintain the highest standards of publication integrity and to ensure unbiased evaluation, we have established rigorous protocols to manage any potential conflicts of interest.
- Minimizing Endogeny and Publication Caps: To adhere to the highest standards of scholarly publishing and global indexing best practices regarding the minimization of endogeny, the journal strictly monitors and limits in-house authorship. Per our editorial policy, the proportion of published papers authored or co-authored by members of the editorial team will never exceed 20% of the total number of articles in any single issue, although, in practice, this percentage remains significantly lower.
- Submissions by Editorial Board Members (Absolute Recusal): When a manuscript is submitted by a member of the Editorial Board, a policy of absolute recusal is enacted. The Editor-in-Chief completely excludes the submitting board member from the editorial workflow, internal commenting, and any deliberations regarding their manuscript. The authoring board member will have absolutely no backend access to confidential review files, reviewer identities, or internal editorial records. The manuscript is treated exactly like any other standard submission and is subjected to the same strict double-blind peer-review process. This exact policy also applies to internal editorial staff, such as the Editorial Manager, ensuring their usual administrative routing privileges and system access are completely bypassed for their own submissions to eliminate any systemic conflict of interest.
- Submissions by the Editor-in-Chief (Absolute Conflict of Interest): A manuscript submitted by the Editor-in-Chief—whether as a sole author or a co-author—constitutes an absolute conflict of interest. Because the selection of peer reviewers and final editorial decisions normally fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Editor-in-Chief, a temporary recusal is mandatory in such cases. For these specific submissions, the Publisher directly intervenes and appoints the Deputy Editor to serve as the Ad-hoc Editor-in-Chief. The Deputy Editor assumes all editorial duties and final decision-making authority exclusively for that specific manuscript, ensuring the Editor-in-Chief is entirely isolated from the peer-review and decision-making process.
- Note on Non-Editorial Personnel: For the avoidance of doubt, as established in our strict editorial independence policy, roles such as the Publisher's Representative and Language Editors have zero involvement in the editorial workflow or decision-making process. Consequently, any manuscripts submitted by individuals in these capacities are processed strictly as standard external submissions, as they possess neither the authority nor the systemic access to influence peer review outcomes.
- The Journal of Islamic Law Research (ILRJ) is committed to promoting transparency, reproducibility, and open science in academic publishing. We strongly encourage authors to share the data, documents, and other artifacts supporting the findings of their research in a responsible and ethical manner.
- Nature of the Data: Given that the vast majority of articles published in ILRJ are doctrinal, theoretical, and based on library or archival research (e.g., historical legal texts, jurisprudence documents, and legislative records), the "data" typically consists of publicly accessible legal sources, statutes, and literature already cited within the manuscript's text and references.
- Data Availability Statement (DAS): To maintain high standards of transparency, ILRJ requires all authors to provide a Data Availability Statement during the submission process. This statement must explicitly detail where any primary data associated with the paper can be found and under what conditions it can be accessed:
- For Doctrinal/Library Research: Authors may state that all data and primary sources underlying the study are fully available within the article itself and its comprehensive reference list.
- For Empirical/Field Research: In the rare event that a study relies on empirical data, statistical surveys, or proprietary datasets, authors must indicate whether the raw data has been deposited in a recognized public data repository.
- Persistent Identifiers and Licensing: When datasets are deposited in external public repositories, authors are strongly advised to provide a persistent and resolvable identifier (such as a DOI) linking directly to the dataset. Furthermore, to facilitate legitimate data reuse and ensure authors receive adequate credit, we recommend that shared datasets be distributed under clear open-access licenses, such as the Creative Commons NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, aligning with the journal's overarching open-access policy.
Self-Archiving & Deposition Policy
|
- Pre-Print (Submitted Version): The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) defines a preprint as "a scholarly manuscript posted by the author(s) on an openly accessible platform, usually before or in parallel with the peer review process." A preprint publication is not considered a duplicate publication and does not influence the Editor-in-Chief's decision to publish it in the Journal of Islamic Law Research. This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through the author's personal website, academic networks (e.g., ResearchGate), preprint servers, or Institutional Repositories; there is no embargo.
- Post-Print (Accepted / Pre-Proof Version): This version of the manuscript (which is designated as "Pre-Proof" on the journal's website prior to final typesetting) may be disseminated through the author's personal website, academic networks (e.g., ResearchGate), preprint servers, or Institutional Repositories; there is no embargo.
- Publisher PDF File (Published Version): This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through personal websites, institutional repositories, and academic platforms, in addition to being archived on the journal's website and other archives of the Journal of Islamic Law Research. Once the final version of the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to add a DOI link to the published article in their publication record, including pre-print and post-print versions.
| Digital Preservation Policy |
- The Journal of Islamic Law Research is committed to the long-term preservation of its digital content. Through full-text licensing agreements, all published issues and articles are systematically deposited and independently hosted by the international databases HeinOnline and J-Gate, as well as the prominent national databases Noormags, Magiran, the Ensani portal, Civilica, and SID. Furthermore, to guarantee permanent accessibility, the journal additionally archives full-text versions of all published papers in official institutional repositories, namely the National Library and Archives of Iran (NLAI) and the Regional Information Center for Science and Technology (RISeST).
- In addition to these repositories, the journal’s entire digital corpus is automatically harvested and permanently preserved by the Internet Archive (IA Scholar). This global preservation system ensures uninterrupted open access to all published articles and metadata, which can be independently verified and accessed directly through the journal's official Fatcat preservation container.
- All published content is assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) via Crossref, ensuring permanent resolvability and citable metadata. These comprehensive arrangements—combining independent full-text hosting, national institutional repositories, and international digital preservation networks—ensure that all scholarly articles remain permanently accessible to the public and preserved for future generations, even in the unfortunate event that the journal ceases publication or the website becomes unavailable.
| Privacy and Confidentiality |
- In adherence to the strictest standards of confidentiality for authors, all manuscripts must undergo review. Authors, by submitting their manuscripts for review, entrust the Editor-in-Chief and editorial staff with the fruits of their creative and scientific labor, which may have significant implications for their reputation and career. Disclosing private information during the manuscript's review process could infringe upon the author's rights.
- Editors and editorial staff are obligated to honor the confidentiality rights of reviewers. Confidentiality may only be breached under suspicion of fraud or dishonesty; otherwise, it must be strictly maintained. They are prohibited from disclosing any information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, review status, critiques from reviewers, or final decision) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers involved.
- Before publication, both reviewers and editorial staff are required to respect the authors' rights by refraining from public criticism or unauthorized use of the authors’ work. Reviewers are allowed to discuss the manuscript with others only upon receiving explicit permission from the Editor-in-Chief and are advised against making personal copies of the manuscript.
- All submitted manuscripts, whether accepted or rejected, along with their review records, are kept confidential and securely archived within the journal's management system in accordance with standard data retention policies. Furthermore, reviewer comments should not be published or disclosed without the explicit consent of the author, Editor-in-Chief, and reviewer.
| Corrections and Retractions |
- To preserve the integrity of the academic record, the journal may need to publish corrections or retractions for papers previously published. In line with the norms agreed upon by the academic community, corrections or retractions of published articles are issued through the publication of an Erratum, Corrigendum, or Retraction notice, without modifying the original article other than by adding a noticeable link to the notice. The original article remains publicly accessible and should be linked to the subsequent correction or retraction for easy reference. In exceptional cases, where material is deemed to infringe on rights or is defamatory, the journal may be required to remove the content from its website and archive sites.
- Minor corrections to published articles requested by the original author(s) must be officially processed through a formal Corrigendum or Erratum notice linked to the paper, rather than informal comments, ensuring the academic record remains accurate and citable. This approach is only permissible if the corrections do not alter the core results or conclusions of the article.
- Corrections: Modifications to published articles that impact meaning and interpretation, but do not render the article entirely invalid, may be addressed, at the Editor-in-Chief's discretion, by issuing a formal correction notice that is indexed and linked to the original article. Changes in authorship of published articles are also handled through this formal correction process in strict alignment with COPE guidelines.
- Retractions: On rare occasions, if the scientific integrity of an article is significantly compromised, it may be necessary to retract the published article. In such instances, the ILRJ must adhere strictly to COPE guidelines. Retracted papers are permanently marked, indexed, and referenced back to the original article.
- Post-Publication Discussions and Debate: The journal welcomes scholarly debate and post-publication discussions. Readers and scholars who wish to constructively debate, critique, or expand upon the findings of a published article may submit a formal 'Letter to the Editor-in-Chief' or a commentary, which will be subject to editorial review and potential peer review.
| Data Fabrication and Falsification Policy |
- The journal maintains a strict zero-tolerance policy toward scientific misconduct, including data fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, and plagiarism. If data fabrication or falsification is suspected during peer review or after publication, the Editor-in-Chief will investigate the matter in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and flowcharts. This process includes notifying the corresponding author, requesting original raw data, and, if necessary, contacting the authors' academic institution. Confirmed cases of misconduct will result in the immediate rejection of the manuscript or the retraction of the published article, accompanied by a formal retraction notice.
Process for Identification and Handling of Publication Malpractice
and Research Misconduct |
- The Editor-in-Chief is committed to identifying and preventing the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, encompassing issues like plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others.
- Upon suspecting misconduct, the journal Editor-in-Chief's initial step is to alert the Editorial Office of ILRJ by providing relevant documents and drafting a letter to the corresponding author for an explanation in a non-accusatory manner. If the author's response is unsatisfactory and indicates significant ethical misconduct, the Editor-in-Chief escalates the issue to the Editorial Board. Based on the Board's deliberations regarding the gravity of the case, the Editor-in-Chief decides whether to impose a ban on future submissions from the author(s).
- For less severe violations, the Editor-in-Chief, guided by the Editorial Board’s advice, issues a warning letter to the author, reminding them of ILRJ's publication policies. Should the manuscript have been published, the Editor-in-Chief may require the author to issue a formal correction notice in the journal to amend the record.
- A notification is sent to the corresponding author, and any work by the offending author or their coauthors under review by the Journal of Islamic Law Research will be immediately rejected. Authors found guilty of misconduct are barred from serving on the ILRJ Editorial Board or as reviewers for the journal.
- ILRJ reserves the right to take additional measures as necessary. Furthermore, the Editor-in-Chief may report severe cases of misconduct to the author's affiliated institution or funding agency for formal investigation. In extreme cases of fraud leading to an article's retraction, a retraction notice will be published in the journal and linked to the retracted article online, which will also be marked as “retracted” along with the retraction date.
Possible Forms of Publication Malpractice
and Ethical Misconduct |
- Data Fabrication and Falsification: Data fabrication and falsification refer to instances where a researcher either invents data or results without actually conducting the study, or manipulates, changes, or omits data or results from the research findings. Data falsification involves altering research outcomes in a misleading manner.
- Duplicate Publication: This occurs when two or more papers, without adequate cross-referencing, share substantially the same hypotheses, data, discussion points, and conclusions.
- Citation Manipulation: Citation manipulation involves including excessive citations in a submitted manuscript that do not enhance the scholarly content and are included solely to increase citations to a specific author's work or articles published in a particular journal, constituting scientific misconduct.
- Simultaneous Submission: A manuscript is simultaneously submitted to more than one journal, or significant parts of it are under consideration elsewhere.
- Redundant Publications: Redundant publications arise from splitting study outcomes into multiple articles unnecessarily, often to bolster an academic resume.
- Improper Author Contribution or Attribution: All listed authors must have significantly contributed to the research and approved the manuscript’s claims. It is important to acknowledge everyone who made a substantial scientific contribution, including students and laboratory technicians.
- Plagiarism: Plagiarism involves using someone else’s ideas or materials without proper attribution, treating them as one's own. Plagiarism can include copying even a single sentence from another manuscript or one’s own previously published work without appropriate citation. ILRJ considers plagiarism a severe breach of publication ethics. Manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using detection software during review or after publication. Detected plagiarism can lead to rejection during peer review or post-publication actions like corrections or retractions. ILRJ also reserves the right to inform the authors' institutions about detected plagiarism.
| Article Withdrawal Policy |
- Although authors hold the right to request the withdrawal of their manuscript by providing valid and justifiable reasons, the journal strongly emphasizes that withdrawing a manuscript to submit it to a higher-ranked journal, due to the duration of the peer-review process, or to otherwise abuse the review system is considered unethical behavior. Such unjustified withdrawals result in a significant waste of time and valuable resources of the editors, reviewers, and the publisher.
- In accordance with international publishing standards, the journal handles withdrawal requests based on the manuscript's status:
- Pre-Review Stage: Withdrawals requested before the manuscript enters the peer-review process are generally straightforward, provided a valid reason is submitted.
- During or After Peer Review: Once a manuscript is under active review or has been accepted for publication, withdrawal requests are highly restricted and assessed on a case-by-case basis. They are permitted only for compelling academic or ethical reasons (e.g., discovery of significant data errors).
- Withdrawal Procedure: To request a withdrawal at any stage, the following workflow must be strictly followed:
- Initial Request: The corresponding author must initiate the withdrawal process directly through their author dashboard in the journal's online system, providing a complete and detailed explanation for the request.
- Editorial Evaluation: The Editor-in-Chief will review the provided reasons.
- Unanimous Consent: If the Editor-in-Chief agrees with the justification, an official "Article Withdrawal Form" will be issued. To proceed, this form must be signed by all co-authors to ensure unanimous consent and returned to the journal.
- Final Confirmation: A manuscript will be considered formally withdrawn only after the signed form is verified and written confirmation has been issued by the Editorial Office.
- Withdrawal Considerations: The journal does not impose financial withdrawal penalties (e.g., withdrawal fees). In alignment with COPE guidelines, the journal does not maintain a formal watchlist. However, repeated or unjustified withdrawal requests may be taken into consideration in future Editor-in-Chief's decisions in order to safeguard the integrity, fairness, and efficiency of the peer-review process.
- General Concerns or Complaints: Anyone wishing to raise a concern or make a complaint about any aspect of the journal's editorial process, peer review, or published content may email [ilr@isu.ac.ir]. In accordance with COPE guidelines, the journal is committed to handling all cases promptly, transparently, fairly, and objectively. ILRJ aims to acknowledge receipt of such emails within five business days. Typically, the Editor-in-Chief will lead the investigation to determine whether the correct procedures have been followed. However, to avoid all forms of conflict of interest in the investigation process—both real and perceived—if a complaint is directed against the Editor-in-Chief, the investigation will be completely isolated from them and directly overseen by the Publisher's Representative as an objective third party.
The complainant will be informed of the outcome in writing. We strive to resolve issues as swiftly as possible, ideally within six weeks. However, please note that investigations can sometimes take several weeks or more, depending on the nature of the concern or complaint, the availability of relevant data and information, involvement of multiple authors and papers, and potential involvement of the author’s institution or other external parties.
In the interest of allowing due process to occur, and to ensure that investigations proceed without prejudice, we respectfully request that anyone raising a concern or complaint allow the process to conclude before publicly commenting on the case.
- Complaints About Our Publications: All concerns raised about our published content are investigated confidentially and in accordance with COPE guidelines, regardless of the complainant's status or identity. In many cases, an internal review will be conducted to determine if a full investigation is necessary. All investigations into our published content will be undertaken in collaboration with the author and the Editor-in-Chief.
We will preserve the anonymity of the complainant to the best of our ability, although we recognize that certain complaints may inadvertently reveal the identity of the person raising the concern. We will inform all complainants once an investigation has been completed and an appropriate action has been determined. To maintain confidentiality, we are unable to provide regular updates to our complainants.
- Appealing the Editorial Decision: The Editor-in-Chief has broad discretion in determining whether a submission is an appropriate fit for the journal. Many submissions are declined without external review and accompanied by a general statement explaining the rejection. These decisions are not eligible for formal appeal.
If an author believes the decision to reject the submission was not in accordance with the journal's policies and procedures, they may appeal by providing the Editor-in-Chief with a detailed, point-by-point response to the reviewer/editor comments. The Editor-in-Chief will review the peer review process that was undertaken for the submission. If the decision aligns with the editorial criteria, the Editor-in-Chief's decision to reject will stand as final.
Please note, in accordance with our policy to uphold Editorial Independence, ILRJ staff do not intervene in disputes between an author and the Editor-in-Chief regarding the final decision.
- Appealing Corrective Action Taken Post Publication: If concerns are raised about a published article, the Editor-in-Chief will determine, in accordance with the guidance published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) — including COPE’s retraction guidelines — and in consultation with ILRJ, whether a published article needs to be retracted or if other corrective actions or notifications need to be made. As stipulated in this page, the journal reserves the right to take corrective action as deemed necessary in the interest of maintaining a transparent and accurate academic record.
Authors can appeal this decision if new evidence that impacts the underlying decision comes to light before the specified deadline for comments. Appeals will be considered by the ILRJ Editor-in-Chief and may be discussed with the Editorial Board, and/or external scientific advisors. The Editor-in-Chief's decisions on appeals related to retractions and expressions of concern are final.
