International Journal of Web Research (IJWR) is committed to apply the codes and principles of conduct of the journals publishing titled "Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing" released earlier & updated 15 September 2022 by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).
Ethical Considerations
International Journal of Web Research (IJWR) is dedicated to implementing double-blind peer reviewing process, in accordance with the COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices. Additionally, the journal adheres to the codes and principles of publication conduct outlined in the document titled "Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing" released earlier & updated 15 September 2022 by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).
Double-blind peer review
IJWR offers a double-blind peer review option. Neither the peer reviewers nor the authors are revealed to each other. Authors may suggest preferred and non-preferred reviewers during manuscript submission. However, the ultimate selection of the reviewers will be determined by the editor(s).
We ask reviewers not to identify themselves to authors while the manuscript is under consideration without the editor's knowledge. If this is not practicable, we ask authors to inform the editor as soon as possible after a reviewer has revealed his or her identity to the author.
Peer review process
The peer-review process is the primary mechanism for maintaining the quality of published articles. Submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous review to ensure that only high-quality submissions are accepted for publication. Acceptance decisions are not based solely on the scientific validity and originality of the study; other factors are also considered, such as the level of innovation, the significance and relevance of new information compared to other submissions, the journal's goal of covering a broad range of topics, and the overall suitability for the journal. Peer review process is follow as below mention steps:
Guidelines for Reviewers
Reviewers play a vital role in ensuring the quality and advancement of the journal. As part of the double-blind peer review process, reviewers must not disclose their identity under any circumstances.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
General Review Checklist
Reviewer Comments
The acceptance or rejection of an article largely depends on the reviewer’s comments, making them a critical part of the peer-review process. Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed, unbiased feedback to enhance the quality of the journal and its publications.
Guidance for Peer Reviewers
All manuscripts at IJWR undergo a double-blind peer review process. We believe peer review is the cornerstone of maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research.
Role of the Reviewer
As a reviewer, your role is to advise the editors (Section Editor and Editor-in-Chief) who make the final decision, often with input from the editorial committee for research and analysis articles. You will be informed of the editorial decision, and constructive comments will be shared with authors to help them improve their work, even if the manuscript is not accepted.
Confidentiality
All unpublished manuscripts are confidential. If invited to review an article, do not discuss it with anyone, including colleagues. When you receive a review invitation:
Timeliness
Prompt responses are critical to ensuring timely decisions for authors. Delays in reviewer responses can significantly impact the author’s publication timeline.
Preparing for Review
Before reviewing, carefully read the journal’s Aims and Scope and Author Guidelines to assess whether the paper is suitable for IJWR.
Providing Constructive Feedback
The primary goal of your review is to offer helpful and constructive feedback. Reviewers should provide objective and critical evaluations of the manuscript while being respectful and polite. Comments should:
Recommendations
In your review, you should:
If applicable, indicate whether the manuscript requires grammar, punctuation, or spelling corrections in Persian or English.
Additional Notes
Thank you for your invaluable contributions to IJWR’s commitment to scholarly excellence.
Privacy and Confidentiality
In IJWR, manuscripts must be reviewed with full respect for authors' confidentiality. By submitting their work for review, authors trust editors with the results of their scientific research and creative efforts, which may impact their reputation and career. Disclosure of confidential details during the review process could violate authors' rights. Reviewers also have the right to confidentiality, which editors must respect.
Confidentiality may be breached only if there are allegations of dishonesty or fraud; otherwise, it must be maintained. Editors must not share information about manuscripts (including receipt, content, review status, reviewer comments, or final decision) with anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This includes requests to use manuscript materials for legal proceedings.
Editors must inform reviewers that manuscripts are privileged communications and the private property of the authors. Reviewers and editorial staff must not publicly discuss the authors' work or use their ideas before publication. Reviewers should not make copies of manuscripts for their records or share them with others, except with the editor’s permission. After submitting their reviews, reviewers should return or destroy manuscript copies. Editors should not retain copies of rejected manuscripts. Reviewer comments should not be published or publicized without the consent of the reviewer, author, and editor.
Conflict of Interest in Reviewing Process
Although we follow a double-blind peer review process, the research community can be a small world, meaning that many reviewers may be familiar with the author’s work. While you can provide a fair assessment of an article written by a colleague or competitor, please keep the following in mind:
If you have any concerns regarding conflicts of interest or ethical issues with the paper, please contact the Editorial Office at the journal’s official email.
If you have any concerns regarding conflicts of interest or ethical issues with the paper, please contact the Editorial Office at the journal’s official email.
IJWR is owned & published by the University of Science and Culture.
The Journal's Governing Body and their affiliations & contact information are available here.
The Journal's Editorial Board and their affiliations & contact information are available at the journal page menu titled: "Editorial Board"
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
All journal papers are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source.
Authors have copyright but license exclusive rights in their article to the publisher*.
Authors have the right to:
* This includes the right to make and authorize commercial use.
** Personal use rights
Authors can use their articles, in full or in part, for scholarly, non-commercial purposes such as:
The corresponding author takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process, and typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest statements, are properly completed. The corresponding author should respond to editorial queries throughout the submission and peer review process in a timely manner, and should cooperate with any requests from the journal after publication.
IJWR does not allow adding authors or changing the first or the corresponding authors after the final acceptance of the article. If any author wishes to be removed from the byline, he or she should submit a letter signed by the author, as well as all other authors, indicating his or her wish to be deleted from the list of authors. Any change in the name order in the byline requires a letter signed by all authors indicting agreement with the same.
Originality and Duplicate Publication
Manuscripts submitted to journal must be original and not published or submitted for publication elsewhere. It is mandatory for all authors to resolve any copyright issues when citing a figure or table from a different journal.
As University of Science and Culture is supporting most of the publishing costs of International Journal of Web Research, Article Processing Charge (APC) and any other publication fees in the journal are free for authors. There is NO APC charges for this journal.
The journal is committed to apply to all codes and principles of conduct of the publisher, available at: https://ijwr.usc.ac.ir. Details of the journal publication ethics consideration, codes, terms, and rules are:
IJWR owned by University of Science and Culture, is committed to apply ethics of publication, based on the COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices. You may find the journal’s code of publication ethics, here.
Authors and Co-authors
IJWR is committed to following and applying the “International Standards for Authors” of the Committee on Publication Ethics in designing and leading the journal’s reviewing and publishing process and handling issues. You can find the International Standards for Authors [here](#). Authors should read and fully apply these standards to their work.
By submitting a paper, authors confirm that they have read and approved the manuscript and that all authors agree to its submission to the journal. It is essential that all authors are credited appropriately when submitting the manuscript. Contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged separately.
Additionally, authors are advised to strictly follow the following code of ethics when submitting manuscripts, which should be their original work or associated with their tenure. Submitted manuscripts must contain original and new results, data, and ideas that have not been submitted for publication elsewhere or published previously. Fabrication of data and results, intellectual property theft, and plagiarism are strictly prohibited; these are against the ethics of authorship. Information obtained from various sources must be included in the manuscript only with prior permission from the owner of the information or data source.
Authors should properly cite the work they refer to and are advised to verify references before submission. They should not attempt to promote their work through any media to secure publication. No article should have an author who is not directly involved in the work for any reason.
Authors and co-authors are required to review and confirm the accuracy and validity of all results before submission. Any potential conflict of interest should be disclosed to the editor in advance. Authors must adhere to the Creative Commons licensing policy of publication. All authors are required to submit the copyright transfer form once their article is accepted for publication.
Editors
IJWR is committed to following and applying the “International Standards for Editors” of the Committee on Publication Ethics in designing and leading the journal’s reviewing and publishing process and handling issues.
The term editor refers to the Chief Editor of any journal, the Content Editor, and Subject Editor as well as the Editorial Board members. Editors of IJWR are expected to have full responsibility for editorial and technical decisions regarding the journal. No editor or office bearer should intervene or comment on any editorial decision made by the concerned editor. Editors are requested to give unbiased consideration to the articles submitted. Editors are solely responsible for the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. While a manuscript may be subjected to peer review, the final decision rests with the concerned editor. Any decision or matter of concern about a submitted article should not be discussed with anyone by an editor. If an editor wishes to publish an article, the article should be handled by another editor.
Editors should refrain from using the information, data, theories, or interpretations from any submitted manuscript in their own work until that manuscript is in press.
Reviewers
Reviewers are the main members contributing for the benefit of the journal being a peer reviewed (blind referee) journal they are insisted not to disclose their identity in any form.
A reviewer should immediately decline to review an article submitted if he/she feels that the article is technically unqualified or if the timely review cannot be done by him/her or if the article has a conflict of interest.
Reviewers are key members contributing to the quality of the journal by ensuring it is a peer-reviewed (blind referee) publication. Reviewers are asked not to disclose their identity in any form.
A reviewer should immediately decline to review an article if they believe it is technically unqualified, if they cannot complete a timely review, or if there is a conflict of interest.
All submissions should be treated as confidential, and editorial approval is needed for any outside advice received.
Reviewers should not pass the article they are reviewing on to another reviewer. If this happens, it should be immediately declined.
Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining high-quality and original work. If a reviewer finds that an article under review is being considered elsewhere, they should inform the editor.
Reviewing an article is a case-by-case process, and there are no strict rules. The following aspects are usually checked:
- Structure of the article and its relevance to the author guidelines
- The purpose and objective of the article
- The method of using transitions
- The introduction and the conclusion/suggestions provided
- References to substantiate the content
- Grammar, punctuation, and spelling
- Plagiarism issues
- Suitability of the article to the journal’s focus
A reviewer’s comments are crucial in deciding the acceptance or rejection of an article, and they are an essential part of the peer review process. Reviewers are asked to carefully read and provide detailed feedback on each article submitted to them, ensuring their comments are unbiased and contributing to the quality of our journals.
COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts
IJWR is committed to follow and apply guidelines and flowcharts of Committee on Publication Ethics in its reviewing and publishing process and issues.
COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices
Chief Editors is accountable for everything published in the journal. This means the editors
1.1 strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
1.2 strive to constantly improve their journal;
1.3 have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish;
1.4 champion freedom of expression;
1.5 maintain the integrity of the academic record;
1.6 preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
1.7 always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Best Practice for Editors would include
2.1 Readers should be informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.
Best practice for editors would include:
4.1 Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
4.2 Editorsshould not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
4.3 New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.
4.4 A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
4.5 Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions.
4.6 Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
4.7 Editors should provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor following the standards within the relevant field.
Best practice for editors would include:
5.1 Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
5.2 Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
5.3 Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.
Best practice for editors would include:
6.1 Editors should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.
Best practice for editors would include:
7.1 The relationship of editors to Publisher and the owner is based firmly on the principle of editorial independence.
7.2 Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from Publisher.
7.3 Editors have a written contract(s) setting out their relationship with Publisher.
7.4 The terms of this contract is in line with the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.
Best practice for editors would include:
8.1 Editors should strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely.
8.2 Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.
Best practice for editors would include:
9.1 Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.
Best practice for editors would include:
10.1 Editors must obey laws on confidentiality in their own jurisdiction. Regardless of local statutes, however, they should always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions. It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from people who might recognize themselves or be identified by others (e.g. from case reports or photographs). It may be possible to publish individual information without explicit consent if public interest considerations outweigh possible harms, it is impossible to obtain consent and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.
Best practice for editors would include:
Note that consent to take part in research or undergo treatment is not the same as consent to publish personal details, images or quotations.
11.1 Editors should endeavor to ensure that research they publish was carried out according to the relevant internationally Declaration of Helsinki for clinical research, and the AERA and BERA guidelines for educational research.
11.2 Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. However, editors should recognize that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.
Best practice for editors would include:
12.1 Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
12.2 Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
12.3 Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable.
12.4 Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate.
12.5 Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.
13.1 Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
13.2 Editors should follow the COPE guidelines on retractions.
Best practice for editors would include:
14.1 Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with Publisher to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.
Best practice for editors would include:
15.1 Editors should encourage and be willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in their journal.
15.2 Authors of criticized material should be given the opportunity to respond.
15.3 Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.
Best practice for editors would include:
16.1 Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE
16.2 Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart on complaints.
17.1 Journals should have policies and systems in place to ensure that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions (e.g. advertising departments should operate independently from editorial departments).
17.2 Editors should have declared policies on advertising in relation to the content of the journal and on processes for publishing sponsored supplements.
17.3 Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction needs to be included in which case it should be clearly identified.
Best practice for editors would include:
18.1 Editors should manage the conflicts of interest issues.
18.2 Journals should have a declared process for handling submissions from the editors, employees or members of the editorial board to ensure unbiased review.
All authors are strongly encouraged to review their manuscripts carefully before submission to ensure they are free of plagiarism. Authors can use reliable plagiarism-checking software to verify the originality of their work. Once submitted, each manuscript will be checked for plagiarism upon receipt and again before final publication using iThenticate and other plagiarism detection software. If reviewers, editors-in-chief, readers, or editorial staff suspect any plagiarism at any stage of the publication process, the manuscript will be rejected, and all authors, including the corresponding author, will be notified. Self-plagiarism will also be addressed accordingly.
COPE’s code of conduct and flowcharts will be used if any Plagiarism detected in a submitted manuscript or if it is found in a published paper.
The Journal is published in a Quarterly basis.
The journal is now archiving electronically at the local & international repositories as follows:
Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ)
Scientific Information Database (SID)
Magiran
University of Science and Culture is supporting most of the publishing costs of International Journal of Web Research. So Article Processing Charge (APC) and any other publication fees in the journal are free for authors. There is NO APC charges for this journal.
According to the policy of the University of Science and Culture, advertisements are not accepted under any circumstances.
IJWR does not engage in any direct marketing activities.
.