Publication Ethics

 

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) and fully complies with the International Committee of Journal Editorial Board Codes of Conduct. 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 Authors must ensure that their submissions are original, unpublished in any language, and compliant with all applicable copyright laws and conventions.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, Associate Editors, 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 Publisher University will serve as the Publisher’s Representative of the journal and act as the executive representative of the publisher in fulfilling these duties.

 

Editorial Board Responsibilities

 

  • The ILRJ editorial team must have full authority to reject or accept a manuscript. They should maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts under review and preserve the anonymity of reviewers until publication. Additionally, the editorial team 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 publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when necessary.

  • The ILRJ editorial team is also tasked with ensuring the confidentiality of the content of submitted articles until their publication. The editor has the final say in accepting articles, basing decisions on the opinions of the reviewers and editorial board members. In line with the journal’s Double-Blind review policy, the anonymity of both judges and authors must be maintained. The team should not disclose information and content of the articles to anyone other than the lead author, the reviewers, and, if necessary, other editorial staff.

  • If ILRJ includes advisory or honorary members on its editorial board, their roles are limited to advising on general journal policies and do not encompass the core responsibilities of the editorial board.

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 editorial team in making decisions about whether to accept or reject an article. Suggestions from reviewers about published articles should be communicated through judging 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

 

 

Authorship Criteria

 

  • To qualify for authorship of submitted manuscripts, contributors must meet the following three 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 will assume all commitments and responsibilities of the authors.

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 in the article, 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 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. 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, no additions, deletions, or changes to the order of authors are permitted. An author wishing to be removed from the article must provide a letter signed by all co-authors expressing this intention. Any alterations to the order of authors in the byline require a letter signed by every author, indicating their unanimous consent.
    ‌

 

Generative AI Policies

 

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.

  1. General Principles:
    1. Adherence to Scientific Ethics: The use of GenAI must not result in academic misconduct, such as plagiarism.
    2. Transparency: All instances of GenAI use must be clearly and accurately disclosed in the paper.
    3. Legal and Ethical Accountability: The user of GenAI is fully responsible for the final content and results generated.
    4. Non-Replacement of Human Agency: GenAI serves only as an auxiliary tool and should not replace critical thinking, creativity, or researcher responsibility.
    5. Protection of Privacy and Data Security: The use of GenAI must not lead to the disclosure of personal or confidential information, especially sensitive data.

  2. Operational Recommendations for Authors: The use of GenAI tools during various stages of research is permissible, provided that the following conditions are met:
    1. The source of the tool (tool name, version, and date of use) must be explicitly stated in the reference list.
    2. Outputs generated by GenAI must be reviewed, double-checked, validated, and scientifically confirmed before use.
    3. Only tools that ensure data security and privacy protection should be utilized.
    4. 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.”

  3. Prohibited Uses of GenAI Tools:
    1. In the Context of Content Generation:
      1. Using GenAI outputs directly without review or validation.
      2. Using GenAI to generate key parts of the research (e.g., data, main findings, discussion, or conclusion) without genuine researcher involvement.
      3. Using GenAI instead of proper quotation or citation (i.e., hidden references leading to plagiarism).
      4. Using GenAI to generate non-factual or fictitious references.

    2. In the Context of Data Analysis:
      1. Citing GenAI-generated analytical results without validation and scientific confirmation.
      2. Using GenAI to perform statistical tests without sufficient knowledge of the underlying methods and limitations.
      3. Using GenAI to manipulate original data or to generate synthetic data.

    3. In the Context of Image or Diagram Generation:
      1. Using GenAI-generated images in research results without citing the source.
      2. Presenting GenAI-generated images as the final output of an observation or experiment.
      3. Using GenAI-generated visuals in a way that misleads the reader.

    4. In the Context of Privacy and Security:
      1. Inputting personal or confidential data into online or insecure GenAI tools.
      2. Using GenAI tools without ensuring compliance with data privacy regulations.
      3. Using GenAI tools that violate national or institutional legal standards.

  4. Authors’ Responsibility in Using GenAI: GenAI tools must always be used as auxiliary resources under the supervision and full responsibility of the researcher. Accordingly:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Accountability to the Sponsoring Institution: In case of ethical breaches, scientific errors, or legal issues arising from GenAI use, the corresponding author bears primary responsibility.
    4. 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.

  5. Operational Recommendations for Editors and Reviewers:
    1. Responsibilities of Editors/Reviewers:
      1. Review the declared use of GenAI in manuscripts and, if not disclosed, request clarification.
      2. Ensure that GenAI use does not result in violations of scientific ethics.
      3. When the credibility of GenAI-generated content is in doubt, request supporting sources or additional review.
      4. Avoid bias against or in favor of GenAI use, provided that it is conducted properly and ethically.

    2. Prohibited Uses of GenAI in Editing/Review:
      1. Uploading the full text of proposals or manuscripts into GenAI systems.
      2. Using GenAI in place of professional scientific review or supervision.
      3. Relying entirely on GenAI analyses or opinions regarding article quality.
      4. Using GenAI for ethical or novelty evaluation without human verification.

  6. Method of Referencing and Citing GenAI Use in Articles:
    1. Citing GenAI Use in Articles
      1. Methodology Section: Explain how GenAI was used in data collection, analysis, design tools, or text drafting.
      2. Research Ethics Section: Confirm compliance with GenAI ethical principles outlined in these guidelines and note that privacy and confidentiality standards were upheld.

    2. In-Text Citation Examples
      1. 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).”

      2. For GenAI-generated images or diagrams, include the source in the caption or title:
          • Example: “This image was generated using the Midjourney v5 tool.”

    3. Citation in the Reference List: If applicable, a section titled “GenAI Tools Used” may be added at the end of the paper, citing tools as follows:

 

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. The data supporting the findings should be available from the corresponding author upon 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. An article is not rejected unless it receives negative feedback from at least two reviewers. The peer review process and related policies are clearly described on the journal's website.

 

 

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's decision to publish it in the Journal of Islamic Law Research. This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through the Institutional Repository and the Author's Profile Homepage on the journal's website; there is no embargo.

  • Post-Print (Accepted Version): This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through the Institutional Repository and the Author's Profile Homepage on the journal's website; there is no embargo.

  • Publisher PDF File (Published Version): This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through any website, 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.

 

 

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 editors 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 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. Editors 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 and are advised against making personal copies of the manuscript.

  • Editors should not retain copies of manuscripts that have been rejected. Furthermore, reviewer comments should not be published or disclosed without the explicit consent of the author, editor, 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 or Retraction notice, without modifying the original article other than by adding a noticeable link to the Erratum/Retraction notice. The original article remains publicly accessible and should be linked to the subsequent Erratum or Retraction for easy reference. In exceptional cases, where material is deemed to infringe on rights or is defamatory, we may be required to remove the content from our website and archive sites.
    Minor corrections to published articles by the original author(s) may be made through a comment on the published article. This approach is only permissible if the corrections do not alter the results or conclusions of the article.

    • Corrections: Modifications to published articles that impact the meaning and conclusion, but do not render the article entirely invalid, may be addressed, at the editor(s)' discretion, by issuing an Erratum that is indexed and linked to the original article. Changes in authorship of published articles are also handled through an Erratum.

    • 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 to COPE guidelines. Retracted papers are indexed and referenced back to the original article.

‌

 

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'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 issue is escalated to the Publication Committee via the Editorial Office. The Committee then deliberates and determines the gravity of the case, deciding whether to impose a ban on future submissions from the author(s).

  • For less severe violations, the Editor, guided by the Publication Committee’s advice, issues a warning letter to the author, reminding them of ILRJ's publication policies. Should the manuscript have been published, the Editor may require the author to issue an apology 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 Islamic Law Research Journal 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. 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.

‌‌

 

Complaints and Appeals

 

  • General Concerns or Complaints: Anyone wishing to raise a concern or make a complaint about any aspect of being published in this journal, may email [ilr@isu.ac.ir]. Please note that ILRJ staff do not provide oversight or comment on editorial decisions for the journal. ILRJ aims to acknowledge receipt of emails sent to [ilr@isu.ac.ir] within five business days. Our Editorial Manager will then lead the investigation following COPE guidelines. The investigation will determine whether the correct procedures have been followed. ILRJ will review the submission history and any correspondence between the author, editor, and reviewers.
    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 Journal Editor.
    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: Editors have broad discretion in determining whether a submission is an appropriate fit for their 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 with a detailed, point-by-point response to the reviewer and editor comments. The Editor will review the peer review process that was undertaken for the submission. If the decision aligns with the editorial criteria, the Editor'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 an editor regarding the final decision.

  • Appealing Corrective Action Taken Post Publication: If concerns are raised about a published article, the Editor 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 reserve 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 ILRJ and may be discussed with the journal Editor, the Editorial Board, and/or external scientific advisors. Decisions on appeals related to retractions and expressions of concern are final.

‌‌

‌‌‌