988368
Thu, Sep 3, 2026
1. General Statement
The Iranian Rehabilitation Journal (IRJ) is committed to maintaining high standards of integrity, transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct in scholarly publishing. Publication ethics is considered a shared responsibility among authors, reviewers, editors, editorial board members, the Journal owner, the publisher and co-publisher, and all other parties involved in scholarly communication.
IRJ, as a member of Negah Journals and a journal co-published by Negah Scientific Publisher on behalf of the University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, follows internationally recognized standards of responsible scholarly publishing. The Journal applies the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the publication ethics policies and standards adopted by Negah Journals.
These principles apply throughout the entire publication process, including manuscript submission, editorial assessment, peer review, revision, acceptance, production, publication, and post-publication evaluation. Ethical concerns may be investigated regardless of whether they are identified before or after publication.
Publication ethics is not limited to plagiarism or research misconduct. It also encompasses responsible authorship, ethical treatment of research participants, accurate reporting, data integrity, appropriate citation, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, responsible peer review, editorial independence, responsible use of artificial intelligence, and maintenance of the integrity of the scholarly record.
2. International Ethical Standards
IRJ follows the current version of the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals and applies relevant COPE Core Practices, guidelines, flowcharts, and other resources when dealing with publication ethics issues.
The COPE Core Practices address allegations of misconduct, authorship and contributorship, complaints and appeals, conflicts of interest, data and reproducibility, ethical oversight, intellectual property, journal management, peer-review processes, and post-publication discussions and corrections.
Because COPE and ICMJE periodically update their guidance, IRJ applies the current versions of these standards when considering ethical questions, even when a specific issue is not described in detail in this policy.
3. Negah Journals and Publisher Ethics Framework
As a member of Negah Journals, IRJ also applies the publication ethics principles and educational resources developed and maintained by Negah Scientific Publisher. These resources are intended to support authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff in understanding and implementing internationally accepted publication ethics standards.
The Journal’s ethical framework includes Negah Principles on Publication Ethics, Negah Guidelines and Flowcharts on Publication Ethics, Negah Standards for Authors, Negah Standards for Editors, Negah Policies and Guidelines of Peer Review, Negah Ethical Principles for Medical Research, and Negah Policies on Conflict of Interest.
These publisher resources should be interpreted alongside the Journal’s own policies and the current guidance of COPE and ICMJE. Where ethical questions require further consideration, the Journal may refer directly to the original COPE and ICMJE guidance and relevant flowcharts or recommendations.
4. Responsibilities of Authors
Authors are responsible for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and transparency of the work submitted to IRJ. Submission of a manuscript indicates that all listed authors have approved the manuscript and its submission, satisfy the Journal’s authorship requirements, and accept appropriate responsibility for the work.
Authors must provide an honest and accurate account of the research performed. Fabrication, falsification, inappropriate manipulation of research data or images, plagiarism, deliberate misrepresentation of methods or findings, selective omission of material findings, and other practices that compromise the reliability of the scientific record are not acceptable.
Authors should retain relevant research records and supporting documentation for an appropriate period and cooperate with reasonable requests from the Journal when questions arise concerning research ethics, authorship, methodology, data integrity, or the reliability of a submitted or published article.
5. Authorship Criteria
IRJ follows the ICMJE recommendations for authorship. Authorship confers both credit and accountability and should therefore be limited to individuals who have made substantial intellectual contributions to the work and who are prepared to take responsibility for the published article.
Authorship should be based on all four of the following criteria:
- Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
- Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content;
- Final approval of the version to be published; and
- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
All individuals listed as authors should meet all four criteria, and individuals who meet all four criteria should be appropriately recognized as authors. Individuals who contribute to the work but do not meet the full criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors and may instead be acknowledged.
Acquisition of funding, general administrative supervision, routine technical assistance, language editing, proofreading, or data collection alone does not qualify an individual for authorship.
6. Authors’ Contributions
IRJ requires published articles to include an Authors’ Contributions statement describing the contribution of each author. The contribution statement should accurately reflect the work performed and should not assign roles to individuals who did not actually perform those activities.
Authors are encouraged to use the CRediT taxonomy where appropriate to provide transparent and standardized information about individual contributions. Relevant roles may include conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, data curation, writing, supervision, visualization, project administration, and funding acquisition.
Responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of the Authors’ Contributions statement rests with the authors, particularly the corresponding author. The contribution statement may be considered by the Journal when questions concerning authorship or responsibility arise.
7. Changes in Authorship
The names and order of authors should be agreed upon by all authors before manuscript submission. The corresponding author does not have unilateral authority to add, remove, or reorder authors without the knowledge and agreement of the other authors.
Requests for addition, removal, or rearrangement of authors after submission must be accompanied by an appropriate explanation. The Journal may require written agreement from all listed authors and from any author being added or removed, in accordance with ICMJE recommendations and applicable COPE guidance.
Changes in authorship after acceptance are permitted only in exceptional circumstances and require editorial approval. If a legitimate authorship change becomes necessary after publication, the Journal may issue a formal correction to maintain an accurate scholarly record.
When an authorship dispute cannot be resolved using documentation available to the Journal, the matter may be referred to the authors’ institution or another competent body. Journals generally do not adjudicate disputes regarding the relative contribution of researchers.
8. Responsibilities of the Corresponding Author
The corresponding author has primary responsibility for communication with the Journal during submission, peer review, revision, publication, and, where necessary, after publication. The corresponding author should respond to editorial communications in a timely manner and ensure that relevant information is communicated to all co-authors.
The corresponding author should ensure that all authors have reviewed and approved the manuscript, authorship order, affiliations, Authors’ Contributions statement, Funding statement, Conflict of Interest declaration, ethical information, and other required declarations.
The corresponding author should also remain available after publication to respond to legitimate questions about the work and to cooperate with requests from the Journal for clarification, documentation, or data when concerns about the published article arise.
9. Acknowledgments and Non-Author Contributors
Individuals who contributed to the research or manuscript but do not meet the criteria for authorship may be identified in the Acknowledgments section. Such contributions may include technical assistance, administrative support, language editing, or other forms of assistance that do not qualify for authorship.
Because acknowledgment may imply that the named individual endorses the work, authors should obtain appropriate permission from individuals who are specifically identified in the Acknowledgments section where necessary.
Funding should be disclosed separately in the Funding section and should not be used as a substitute for identifying intellectual contributions or for assigning authorship.
10. Originality and Plagiarism
Manuscripts submitted to IRJ must represent original scholarly work. Authors must appropriately acknowledge ideas, words, data, images, methods, and other intellectual contributions originating from other sources.
IRJ may screen submitted manuscripts using iThenticate or other appropriate similarity-detection systems. Similarity percentages are not interpreted mechanically, and a specific numerical similarity score alone does not establish whether plagiarism has occurred.
Similarity reports are evaluated in context, considering the nature, source, extent, and location of overlapping material. Suspected plagiarism may involve unattributed copying of text, ideas, data, figures, or other intellectual material and will be investigated according to relevant Journal policies and COPE guidance.
Depending on the nature, timing, and severity of the concern, the Journal may request clarification or revision, reject a manuscript, contact the relevant institution, publish a correction, or retract a published article.
11. Text Recycling and Reuse of Previously Published Material
Authors should avoid inappropriate reuse of substantial portions of their own previously published material without transparent disclosure and appropriate citation. Reuse of previously published content may constitute unacceptable text recycling or redundant publication when it gives a misleading impression of originality.
Limited reuse of standard methodological descriptions may be acceptable in appropriate circumstances, particularly when the same established procedure has been used, provided that the earlier work is appropriately acknowledged when relevant and the reuse does not infringe copyright.
Authors remain responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce copyrighted material when permission is required and for ensuring that previously published material is accurately attributed.
12. Duplicate Submission and Redundant Publication
A manuscript must not be submitted simultaneously to IRJ and another journal. Authors should wait until IRJ has formally completed consideration of a manuscript or confirmed its withdrawal before submitting the same work elsewhere.
Authors must disclose closely related manuscripts that have been published, accepted, submitted, or are under consideration elsewhere when such material overlaps substantially with the submitted work.
When multiple publications arise from the same study, dataset, thesis, or research project, each manuscript should address a sufficiently distinct research question and should transparently identify and cite related publications where relevant.
Duplicate or redundant publication that substantially reproduces previously published data or conclusions without appropriate justification and disclosure may lead to manuscript rejection or post-publication action.
13. Research Misconduct
IRJ takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously whether they arise before or after publication. Concerns may include fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, serious image manipulation, manipulated peer review, undisclosed redundant publication, serious authorship misconduct, citation manipulation, or deliberate misrepresentation of research.
An allegation alone is not treated as proof of misconduct. The Journal will assess available evidence objectively and, where appropriate, provide authors or other involved parties with an opportunity to respond.
When formal investigation is required, IRJ may refer the matter to an institution, research integrity office, ethics committee, funder, or another competent authority. The Journal may take appropriate editorial action on the basis of available evidence and the outcome of relevant investigations.
14. Ethical Approval for Research Involving Human Participants
Research involving human participants must have been conducted in accordance with applicable institutional and national ethical requirements and internationally accepted ethical principles, including the Declaration of Helsinki.
Published research articles involving human participants should report the name of the approving ethics committee or institutional review body and the relevant approval or ethics code where applicable. This is consistent with the Ethical Considerations section routinely used in IRJ articles.
Authors should also describe informed consent where applicable. The Journal may request supporting documentation relating to ethics approval or informed consent when necessary.
Approval by an ethics committee does not prevent the Editor from raising ethical concerns when submitted or published information suggests that research may not have been conducted according to acceptable ethical standards. The Journal may reject a manuscript on ethical grounds when substantial concerns remain unresolved.
15. Informed Consent to Participate
For research involving human participants, informed consent should be obtained in accordance with the applicable study design, ethical approval, national regulations, and institutional requirements.
When participants are unable to provide consent, appropriate consent from a parent, legal guardian, or authorized representative should be obtained where required by applicable standards.
The manuscript should include an appropriate statement regarding informed consent when applicable. The Journal may request additional information if the consent process is unclear or appears inconsistent with the nature of the research.
16. Patient Privacy and Consent for Publication
The privacy and confidentiality of patients and research participants must be protected. Names, initials, hospital numbers, recognizable photographs, videos, or other identifying information should not be published unless the information is scientifically necessary and appropriate consent for publication has been obtained.
Case Reports and other manuscripts that include identifiable patient information must include an appropriate statement regarding consent for publication. Authors are responsible for ensuring that such consent permits the information presented in the article to be published.
Simply obscuring part of a photograph, such as covering the eyes, may not always provide adequate anonymity. When there is uncertainty regarding identifiability, authors should obtain appropriate consent for publication.
Documentation of consent should be retained by the authors and made available to the Journal when legitimately requested. Such documentation will be handled confidentially.
17. Research Involving Animals
Research involving animals must comply with applicable institutional, national, and international standards governing ethical animal research and animal welfare.
Authors should report the name of the approving ethics committee or institutional body and the relevant approval/code where applicable. Research procedures should be designed to minimize unnecessary pain, distress, or suffering.
Animal studies should be reported in accordance with appropriate reporting standards, including ARRIVE where applicable. The Journal may reject a manuscript if significant unresolved concerns exist regarding animal welfare or ethical conduct.
18. Clinical Trial Registration
IRJ follows the current ICMJE recommendations concerning clinical trial registration. Clinical trials should be registered in a publicly accessible and recognized clinical trial registry in accordance with applicable ICMJE requirements.
The registry name and registration number should be reported in the manuscript. Prospective registration is expected when required under applicable standards. If registration was retrospective, authors should disclose this and provide an explanation.
Trial registration does not replace ethical approval, informed consent, or transparent reporting. Editors may compare information presented in the manuscript with the registered protocol when evaluating consistency between planned and reported outcomes.
19. Data Integrity and Research Records
Authors are responsible for the integrity and accuracy of the research data reported in their manuscripts. Data must not be fabricated, falsified, selectively manipulated, or presented in a way that materially misrepresents the findings.
Authors should retain original research data and relevant supporting documentation for an appropriate period in accordance with institutional, ethical, legal, and funder requirements.
When substantial concerns arise concerning the integrity or reliability of a submitted or published article, the Journal may request access to relevant data, protocols, statistical outputs, original images, or other supporting documentation necessary to evaluate the concern.
Failure to provide requested documentation does not automatically establish misconduct but may be considered together with other available evidence when assessing the reliability of the work.
20. Data Availability and Authors’ Access to Data
IRJ supports research transparency and responsible data sharing while recognizing legitimate ethical, privacy, confidentiality, legal, and intellectual-property restrictions that may apply to rehabilitation and health research.
Authors of Original Research Articles are encouraged to provide a Data Availability Statement describing whether and under what conditions the data supporting the study findings can be accessed. The Journal may require such a statement when appropriate to the research design, funder requirements, or applicable research standards.
Investigators should retain appropriate access to the data required to evaluate and publish their work. Authors should not enter into agreements with sponsors that prevent them from accessing study data, conducting independent analyses, interpreting the results, or publishing the research responsibly.
When data cannot be publicly shared because of participant privacy, ethical restrictions, confidentiality, legal requirements, or other legitimate reasons, these restrictions should be clearly explained where a Data Availability Statement is provided.
21. Image Integrity
Scientific images must accurately represent the original observations. Authors must not selectively enhance, remove, move, introduce, obscure, or manipulate features in a manner that changes or misrepresents the scientific meaning of an image.
Adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color may be acceptable when applied appropriately and when they do not remove, obscure, or misrepresent information. Equivalent adjustments should normally be applied consistently to the entire image.
The Journal may request original or unprocessed image files when questions concerning image integrity arise. Inappropriate image manipulation may result in manuscript rejection or post-publication action, including correction, retraction, or referral to an institution when warranted.
22. Reporting Guidelines and Research Transparency
IRJ considers transparent and complete reporting an important component of responsible research publication. Authors should provide sufficient methodological information to allow readers to understand, critically evaluate, and, where appropriate, reproduce the research.
As specified in the Journal’s Instructions for Authors, authors are required to follow an established reporting guideline when an appropriate guideline exists for the study design. Relevant standards include CONSORT for randomized controlled trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews, STARD for diagnostic accuracy studies, CARE for Case Reports, COREQ or SRQR for qualitative research, TRIPOD for prediction models, CHEERS for economic evaluations, and ARRIVE for animal research.
Compliance with a reporting guideline does not compensate for weaknesses in study design or methodology. Authors, reviewers, and editors share responsibility for ensuring that the methods, participant numbers, analyses, results, and conclusions reported in an article are internally consistent and scientifically appropriate.
23. Appropriate Citation Practices
References should be selected because they are relevant to the research question and genuinely support the statements for which they are cited. Authors are responsible for checking the accuracy and appropriateness of all references.
IRJ does not permit citation manipulation, including inappropriate self-citation, coercive citation, citation stacking, unnecessary addition of articles from a particular journal, or inclusion of irrelevant references for the purpose of increasing citation counts.
Reviewers and editors should not ask authors to add citations to their own work, the Journal, or another publication unless those references are genuinely relevant and improve the scientific accuracy, context, or completeness of the manuscript.
Authors should verify references against the original sources wherever reasonably possible and should not rely on unverified citations generated by automated or artificial intelligence systems.
24. Conflicts of Interest and Competing Interests
Public trust in peer review and scholarly publication depends partly on transparent management of relationships and activities that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, professional judgment.
All authors must disclose relevant financial and non-financial relationships and activities. Financial relationships may include employment, consultancies, honoraria, grants, stock ownership, patents, paid expert testimony, or other financial interests. Non-financial interests may include professional relationships, academic competition, personal relationships, institutional roles, or intellectual commitments that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the work.
The existence of a relationship or activity does not necessarily constitute misconduct or invalidate a manuscript. Disclosure allows editors, reviewers, and readers to evaluate potentially relevant interests transparently.
All submitted articles should include a Conflict of Interest statement. When no conflict exists, authors should explicitly state that no conflicts of interest were declared. Authors should comply with the Journal’s dedicated Conflict of Interest Policy and complete applicable ICMJE disclosure requirements when requested.
25. Funding and Role of the Funder
All sources of financial or material support should be disclosed in the Funding section of the manuscript. The funding organization and grant number should be provided when applicable.
Authors should disclose the role of the sponsor or funder in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; preparation or review of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication when such involvement exists.
When the funder had no role in these activities, authors may state this explicitly. Authors should not accept contractual restrictions that compromise their ability to access and analyze research data independently or that improperly prevent the publication of scientifically valid findings.
Funding arrangements and Article Processing Charges are separate from editorial decision-making. As stated in the Journal’s Financial Policies, editorial decisions are made independently of financial considerations.
26. Peer Review
IRJ applies a double-blind peer-review process as described in its Peer Review Policy. Submitted manuscripts first undergo editorial screening to assess scope, originality, ethical compliance, minimum scientific quality, and methodological suitability for external review.
Manuscripts proceeding to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate expertise. Additional reviewers or methodological or statistical expertise may be sought when necessary.
An Associate Editor or Handling Editor coordinates the review process and evaluates reviewers’ comments before making a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers provide expert recommendations, but they do not independently decide whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.
The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief. Editorials, Letters to the Editor, and selected invited contributions may undergo editorial assessment as described in the Journal’s Peer Review Policy.
27. Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers
Reviewers should provide objective, evidence-based, constructive, respectful, and timely evaluations of manuscripts within their areas of expertise. Reviewers should assess the scientific question, methodology, interpretation, reporting quality, relevance of references, and consistency of the evidence with the conclusions.
Reviewers should decline an invitation when they do not have sufficient expertise, cannot complete the review within an appropriate timeframe, or have a conflict of interest that prevents an impartial evaluation.
Reviewers should not make personal or derogatory comments about authors. Criticism should address the manuscript and should be expressed in a professional manner that assists editors in decision-making and, where appropriate, helps authors improve their work.
If reviewers identify suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, ethical concerns, citation manipulation, or another potential integrity problem, they should communicate their concerns confidentially to the Editor rather than making unsupported allegations directly to the authors.
28. Confidentiality of Peer Review
Submitted manuscripts are confidential and privileged communications. Editors, editorial staff, and reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, research data, and other information obtained through the editorial process.
Reviewers should not share manuscripts or confidential information with colleagues, students, trainees, or other individuals without authorization from the Journal. Unpublished data or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for personal, academic, competitive, or commercial advantage.
Information about a submitted manuscript should not be disclosed to individuals who are not legitimately involved in the editorial process except when disclosure is necessary for investigating an ethical concern and is consistent with appropriate procedures.
Confidentiality may need to be limited when allegations of misconduct require communication with an institution, ethics committee, funder, or another competent body. In such cases, the Journal will disclose only information reasonably necessary for the investigation.
29. Responsibilities of Editors
Editors are responsible for evaluating manuscripts fairly, consistently, independently, and on the basis of scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical acceptability, relevance to rehabilitation, and suitability for the Journal.
Editorial decisions should not be influenced by authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, personal relationships, political or religious views, ability to pay publication charges, or other characteristics unrelated to the scholarly merit of the manuscript.
Editors should protect confidentiality, manage conflicts of interest, select appropriately qualified reviewers, evaluate reviewer recommendations critically, and ensure that published articles meet the Journal’s scientific and ethical standards.
Editors should also take reasonable action when credible concerns arise concerning submitted or published material. Responsibility for the integrity of the scholarly record continues after an article has been published.
30. Conflicts of Interest of Editors and Reviewers
Reviewers, editors, editorial board members, and editorial staff must disclose relevant relationships or activities that could influence or reasonably appear to influence their judgment.
Reviewers should decline manuscripts when a conflict prevents an impartial assessment. Editors who have a significant personal, professional, academic, or financial conflict relating to a manuscript should not participate in its assessment or final decision.
A manuscript submitted by an Editor, Editorial Board member, employee, or individual closely associated with the Journal may still be considered for publication, but it must undergo an independent editorial and peer-review process in which the author has no influence over reviewer selection, reviewer reports, or the final decision.
The same principle applies to Guest Editors and manuscripts submitted to Special Issues.
31. Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions at IRJ are based on scientific and editorial considerations and are independent of commercial or financial interests.
The University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, as the Journal owner and publisher, and Negah Scientific Publisher, as the Journal’s co-publisher, support the Journal’s publication activities while respecting the independence of editorial decisions concerning individual manuscripts.
Article Processing Charges do not influence peer review or acceptance decisions. Authors’ ability or inability to pay should not influence scientific assessment, reviewer selection, or the editorial decision.
The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for final editorial decisions in accordance with the Journal’s Peer Review Policy.
32. Special Issues and Guest Editors
Special Issues and thematic collections published by IRJ are subject to the same standards of scientific quality, peer review, publication ethics, and editorial independence as regular issues of the Journal.
A Special Issue should have a clearly defined scholarly theme relevant to the Journal’s Aims and Scope. Guest Editors should possess appropriate expertise and should disclose any relevant conflicts of interest.
Guest Editors should not independently handle or make decisions on manuscripts when a conflict of interest exists. Manuscripts authored by Guest Editors, close collaborators, colleagues, or individuals with whom they have relevant relationships should be assigned to an independent editor.
The Editor-in-Chief and the Journal retain responsibility for the scientific and ethical integrity of all content published in a Special Issue. Appointment of a Guest Editor does not transfer the Journal’s responsibility for peer review, quality control, or the integrity of the scholarly record.
33. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Authors
IRJ applies a dedicated Artificial Intelligence Policy developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles, including current COPE and ICMJE guidance. Authors should consult that policy before using artificial intelligence or AI-assisted technologies in research or manuscript preparation.
Artificial intelligence systems, large language models, chatbots, or other AI-assisted technologies cannot be listed as authors because they cannot meet the requirements for accountability, approval, disclosure, and responsibility required of human authors.
Authors remain fully responsible for all material submitted to IRJ, including material generated, revised, analyzed, translated, or otherwise assisted by AI. Authors must verify the accuracy, originality, references, statistical information, interpretations, and conclusions of AI-assisted material.
Substantive or meaningful use of generative AI should be disclosed in accordance with the Journal’s AI Policy. When AI is used as part of the research method, data analysis, or generation of scientific figures or content, the use should also be described in the appropriate section of the manuscript.
Routine spelling, grammar, or basic language correction generally does not require disclosure unless otherwise specified in the Journal’s Artificial Intelligence Policy.
34. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers and Editors
Manuscripts submitted to IRJ are confidential communications. Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts, figures, supplementary files, unpublished data, reviewer reports, or confidential editorial material to external AI systems when confidentiality cannot be assured, unless appropriate authorization has been obtained.
Reviewers remain personally responsible for the scientific assessment contained in their reports. AI-generated evaluations must not replace the reviewer’s own critical judgment and responsibility.
Editors remain responsible for all editorial decisions. Artificial intelligence may assist appropriate administrative or technical processes, but it must not independently determine acceptance, rejection, correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction.
Additional requirements concerning AI use by reviewers and editors are provided in the Journal’s dedicated Artificial Intelligence Policy.
35. Complaints and Appeals
IRJ provides mechanisms for authors, reviewers, readers, and other interested parties to raise concerns about editorial processes, ethical issues, or published content.
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe a significant scientific, factual, or procedural error occurred during assessment. An appeal should explain the grounds for reconsideration clearly and should not consist solely of disagreement with a reviewer or editorial decision.
Complaints and appeals will be evaluated fairly and, where reasonably possible, by individuals who were not directly responsible for the matter under dispute. Relevant COPE guidance may be consulted when appropriate.
Complaints concerning publication ethics may be referred to the Editor-in-Chief, the Journal owner, the co-publisher, or another appropriate body depending on the nature of the concern.
36. Allegations from Readers and Whistleblowers
IRJ takes credible concerns regarding submitted or published work seriously regardless of whether they originate from authors, reviewers, readers, institutions, whistleblowers, or other sources.
Concerns will be evaluated on the basis of the evidence provided rather than solely on the identity or position of the complainant. Anonymous allegations may be considered when they provide sufficiently specific information or evidence to permit meaningful evaluation.
The Journal will seek to maintain confidentiality where appropriate, while recognizing that some investigations may require communication with institutions or other competent authorities.
Retaliation against individuals who raise genuine ethical concerns in good faith is inconsistent with the Journal’s commitment to publication integrity.
37. Corrections
IRJ may publish a correction when an error is identified in a published article that affects its accuracy, interpretation, attribution, or completeness but does not invalidate the article as a whole.
A correction should clearly identify the affected article and explain what has been corrected. The correction should be linked to the original publication, and the status of the article should be updated through the Journal’s applicable publication and CrossMark procedures.
Errors in author names, affiliations, authorship information, numerical results, tables, figures, or other scientifically meaningful information may require formal correction when the scholarly record would otherwise be inaccurate.
Minor typographical errors that have no effect on scientific meaning or interpretation may not require a formal correction.
38. Retractions
IRJ follows COPE guidance when determining whether a published article should be retracted. Retraction may be appropriate when there is clear evidence that findings are unreliable because of major error or misconduct, fabrication or falsification, plagiarism, serious redundant publication, unethical research, manipulated peer review, or another problem that substantially undermines the integrity of the article.
The primary purpose of retraction is to correct the scholarly literature and protect readers rather than to punish authors. Retraction decisions should therefore focus on the reliability and integrity of the published record.
A retraction notice should be clearly identified, linked to the affected article, freely accessible, and state the reason for retraction and the party issuing the notice. The original article should normally remain available as part of the scholarly record but should be clearly identified as retracted.
The Journal will normally seek information from the authors before making a retraction decision. However, unanimous agreement of the authors is not required when sufficient evidence demonstrates that retraction is necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.
39. Expressions of Concern
IRJ may publish an Expression of Concern when substantial concerns have arisen regarding the integrity or reliability of a published article but the available evidence is inconclusive or an institutional or other investigation is still in progress.
An Expression of Concern is intended to alert readers to significant unresolved questions without prematurely concluding that misconduct occurred or that the article must be retracted.
When sufficient evidence becomes available, the Journal will reassess the case and take appropriate action. This may include removing or updating the Expression of Concern, publishing a correction, or retracting the article.
Expressions of Concern and subsequent updates should be linked appropriately to the original article and reflected in relevant CrossMark information.
40. Withdrawal of Manuscripts
Authors wishing to withdraw a manuscript that is under consideration should submit a written request to the Editorial Office explaining the reason for withdrawal.
A manuscript is not considered formally withdrawn until confirmation has been provided by the Journal. Authors should not submit the same manuscript to another journal while it remains under active consideration by IRJ.
Failure to respond to editorial correspondence after appropriate reminders may result in administrative closure of a submission. Administrative closure is distinct from withdrawal initiated by the authors and from retraction of a published article.
Once an article has formally entered the scholarly record, significant concerns should normally be addressed through correction, retraction, Expression of Concern, or another appropriate post-publication mechanism rather than by simply removing the article.
41. Post-Publication Discussion
IRJ supports responsible scientific discussion after publication. Readers may communicate substantive comments, critiques, or concerns about published articles to the Editorial Office or through other mechanisms available through the Journal.
When appropriate, authors may be invited to respond to scientific criticism. A concern will be evaluated on its scientific or ethical merits and will not be dismissed solely because the article has already completed peer review and publication.
If post-publication discussion identifies an error or raises a substantive concern regarding the integrity or reliability of an article, the Journal will determine whether further investigation or editorial action is required.
Letters to the Editor may also provide a formal mechanism for scholarly discussion of published research when appropriate.
42. CrossMark and Version Control
IRJ participates in CrossMark to help readers identify the current authoritative status of published content and determine whether an article has been corrected, retracted, or otherwise updated.
Significant post-publication changes, including corrections, retractions, and Expressions of Concern, should be linked to the original publication and recorded through the Journal’s applicable CrossMark procedures.
The Journal seeks to preserve the history of the scholarly record transparently rather than making substantive changes to published articles without appropriate notice.
Detailed information is available in the Journal’s CrossMark Policy.
43. Preservation of Published Content
IRJ recognizes long-term preservation as an important component of maintaining the scholarly record. Published content is preserved through the Journal’s digital preservation arrangements and remains accessible in accordance with the Journal’s Archiving Policy.
Authors retain copyright to their published work, while the Journal maintains and preserves the published Version of Record in accordance with its Open Access and Copyright policies.
Post-publication changes should therefore be made through transparent mechanisms such as corrections, retractions, or Expressions of Concern rather than through unrecorded alteration of the scientific record.
The Journal’s Archiving Policy provides further information on preservation and author self-archiving.
44. Intellectual Property, Copyright, and Permissions
Authors are responsible for respecting copyright and other intellectual-property rights when preparing manuscripts for IRJ.
Previously published figures, tables, questionnaires, scales, substantial portions of text, or other copyrighted materials should not be reproduced or adapted without appropriate authorization when permission is legally required.
Obtaining permission does not remove the requirement to provide appropriate attribution to the original source. Authors are responsible for ensuring that licenses or permissions permit the intended form of publication and reuse.
Authors retain copyright to articles published in IRJ. Articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license in accordance with the Journal’s Open Access Policy.
45. Open Access and Publication Charges
IRJ is a fully open-access journal. Published articles are freely available online immediately upon publication under the terms of the Journal’s current open-access license.
The University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences financially supports substantial parts of the Journal’s editorial and publication activities. Authors are required to pay the Article Processing Charge specified in the Journal’s current Financial Policies after acceptance.
Article Processing Charges are independent of scientific and editorial decision-making. Payment or the authors’ financial circumstances must not influence peer review, editorial assessment, or the decision to accept or reject a manuscript.
The current amount and conditions of the Article Processing Charge should be obtained directly from the Journal’s Financial Policies because charges may be revised over time.
46. Errors Identified by Authors
Authors have an ongoing responsibility for the integrity of their published work. If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy after publication, the author should promptly inform the Editorial Office and cooperate with the Journal in determining an appropriate corrective action.
Reporting an honest error does not in itself imply research misconduct. The Journal seeks, where possible, to distinguish honest error from deliberate misconduct while ensuring that unreliable or inaccurate information is appropriately corrected.
Depending on the nature and significance of the error, the appropriate action may include a correction, retraction, or another transparent update to the scholarly record.
Failure to cooperate with a legitimate investigation may result in the Journal seeking information from co-authors, institutions, ethics committees, funders, or other relevant bodies.
47. Cooperation with Institutions and Other Journals
Some publication ethics concerns cannot be fully investigated by a journal. Institutions are generally responsible for conducting formal investigations into suspected research misconduct involving their researchers.
When appropriate and consistent with COPE guidance, IRJ may contact an author’s institution, research integrity office, ethics committee, funder, another journal, or another competent body to request information or investigation.
The Journal may also communicate with another journal when potentially overlapping publications or coordinated ethical concerns involve content published or submitted in more than one journal.
Only information reasonably necessary for the ethical investigation should be shared, and confidentiality and procedural fairness should be respected to the extent possible.
48. Publisher Principles and Educational Resources
IRJ encourages authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff to consult original international and publisher resources on publication ethics. These resources provide detailed guidance, flowcharts, case discussions, and educational materials that cannot be fully reproduced within a single Journal policy.
As a member of Negah Journals, IRJ applies and recommends the following publisher resources:
Acquisition of funding, general administrative supervision, routine technical assistance, language editing, proofreading, or data collection alone does not qualify an individual for authorship.
6. Authors’ Contributions
IRJ requires published articles to include an Authors’ Contributions statement describing the contribution of each author. The contribution statement should accurately reflect the work performed and should not assign roles to individuals who did not actually perform those activities.
Authors are encouraged to use the CRediT taxonomy where appropriate to provide transparent and standardized information about individual contributions. Relevant roles may include conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, data curation, writing, supervision, visualization, project administration, and funding acquisition.
Responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of the Authors’ Contributions statement rests with the authors, particularly the corresponding author. The contribution statement may be considered by the Journal when questions concerning authorship or responsibility arise.
7. Changes in Authorship
The names and order of authors should be agreed upon by all authors before manuscript submission. The corresponding author does not have unilateral authority to add, remove, or reorder authors without the knowledge and agreement of the other authors.
Requests for addition, removal, or rearrangement of authors after submission must be accompanied by an appropriate explanation. The Journal may require written agreement from all listed authors and from any author being added or removed, in accordance with ICMJE recommendations and applicable COPE guidance.
Changes in authorship after acceptance are permitted only in exceptional circumstances and require editorial approval. If a legitimate authorship change becomes necessary after publication, the Journal may issue a formal correction to maintain an accurate scholarly record.
When an authorship dispute cannot be resolved using documentation available to the Journal, the matter may be referred to the authors’ institution or another competent body. Journals generally do not adjudicate disputes regarding the relative contribution of researchers.
8. Responsibilities of the Corresponding Author
The corresponding author has primary responsibility for communication with the Journal during submission, peer review, revision, publication, and, where necessary, after publication. The corresponding author should respond to editorial communications in a timely manner and ensure that relevant information is communicated to all co-authors.
The corresponding author should ensure that all authors have reviewed and approved the manuscript, authorship order, affiliations, Authors’ Contributions statement, Funding statement, Conflict of Interest declaration, ethical information, and other required declarations.
The corresponding author should also remain available after publication to respond to legitimate questions about the work and to cooperate with requests from the Journal for clarification, documentation, or data when concerns about the published article arise.
9. Acknowledgments and Non-Author Contributors
Individuals who contributed to the research or manuscript but do not meet the criteria for authorship may be identified in the Acknowledgments section. Such contributions may include technical assistance, administrative support, language editing, or other forms of assistance that do not qualify for authorship.
Because acknowledgment may imply that the named individual endorses the work, authors should obtain appropriate permission from individuals who are specifically identified in the Acknowledgments section where necessary.
Funding should be disclosed separately in the Funding section and should not be used as a substitute for identifying intellectual contributions or for assigning authorship.
10. Originality and Plagiarism
Manuscripts submitted to IRJ must represent original scholarly work. Authors must appropriately acknowledge ideas, words, data, images, methods, and other intellectual contributions originating from other sources.
IRJ may screen submitted manuscripts using iThenticate or other appropriate similarity-detection systems. Similarity percentages are not interpreted mechanically, and a specific numerical similarity score alone does not establish whether plagiarism has occurred.
Similarity reports are evaluated in context, considering the nature, source, extent, and location of overlapping material. Suspected plagiarism may involve unattributed copying of text, ideas, data, figures, or other intellectual material and will be investigated according to relevant Journal policies and COPE guidance.
Depending on the nature, timing, and severity of the concern, the Journal may request clarification or revision, reject a manuscript, contact the relevant institution, publish a correction, or retract a published article.
11. Text Recycling and Reuse of Previously Published Material
Authors should avoid inappropriate reuse of substantial portions of their own previously published material without transparent disclosure and appropriate citation. Reuse of previously published content may constitute unacceptable text recycling or redundant publication when it gives a misleading impression of originality.
Limited reuse of standard methodological descriptions may be acceptable in appropriate circumstances, particularly when the same established procedure has been used, provided that the earlier work is appropriately acknowledged when relevant and the reuse does not infringe copyright.
Authors remain responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce copyrighted material when permission is required and for ensuring that previously published material is accurately attributed.
12. Duplicate Submission and Redundant Publication
A manuscript must not be submitted simultaneously to IRJ and another journal. Authors should wait until IRJ has formally completed consideration of a manuscript or confirmed its withdrawal before submitting the same work elsewhere.
Authors must disclose closely related manuscripts that have been published, accepted, submitted, or are under consideration elsewhere when such material overlaps substantially with the submitted work.
When multiple publications arise from the same study, dataset, thesis, or research project, each manuscript should address a sufficiently distinct research question and should transparently identify and cite related publications where relevant.
Duplicate or redundant publication that substantially reproduces previously published data or conclusions without appropriate justification and disclosure may lead to manuscript rejection or post-publication action.
13. Research Misconduct
IRJ takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously whether they arise before or after publication. Concerns may include fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, serious image manipulation, manipulated peer review, undisclosed redundant publication, serious authorship misconduct, citation manipulation, or deliberate misrepresentation of research.
An allegation alone is not treated as proof of misconduct. The Journal will assess available evidence objectively and, where appropriate, provide authors or other involved parties with an opportunity to respond.
When formal investigation is required, IRJ may refer the matter to an institution, research integrity office, ethics committee, funder, or another competent authority. The Journal may take appropriate editorial action on the basis of available evidence and the outcome of relevant investigations.
14. Ethical Approval for Research Involving Human Participants
Research involving human participants must have been conducted in accordance with applicable institutional and national ethical requirements and internationally accepted ethical principles, including the Declaration of Helsinki.
Published research articles involving human participants should report the name of the approving ethics committee or institutional review body and the relevant approval or ethics code where applicable. This is consistent with the Ethical Considerations section routinely used in IRJ articles.
Authors should also describe informed consent where applicable. The Journal may request supporting documentation relating to ethics approval or informed consent when necessary.
Approval by an ethics committee does not prevent the Editor from raising ethical concerns when submitted or published information suggests that research may not have been conducted according to acceptable ethical standards. The Journal may reject a manuscript on ethical grounds when substantial concerns remain unresolved.
15. Informed Consent to Participate
For research involving human participants, informed consent should be obtained in accordance with the applicable study design, ethical approval, national regulations, and institutional requirements.
When participants are unable to provide consent, appropriate consent from a parent, legal guardian, or authorized representative should be obtained where required by applicable standards.
The manuscript should include an appropriate statement regarding informed consent when applicable. The Journal may request additional information if the consent process is unclear or appears inconsistent with the nature of the research.
16. Patient Privacy and Consent for Publication
The privacy and confidentiality of patients and research participants must be protected. Names, initials, hospital numbers, recognizable photographs, videos, or other identifying information should not be published unless the information is scientifically necessary and appropriate consent for publication has been obtained.
Case Reports and other manuscripts that include identifiable patient information must include an appropriate statement regarding consent for publication. Authors are responsible for ensuring that such consent permits the information presented in the article to be published.
Simply obscuring part of a photograph, such as covering the eyes, may not always provide adequate anonymity. When there is uncertainty regarding identifiability, authors should obtain appropriate consent for publication.
Documentation of consent should be retained by the authors and made available to the Journal when legitimately requested. Such documentation will be handled confidentially.
17. Research Involving Animals
Research involving animals must comply with applicable institutional, national, and international standards governing ethical animal research and animal welfare.
Authors should report the name of the approving ethics committee or institutional body and the relevant approval/code where applicable. Research procedures should be designed to minimize unnecessary pain, distress, or suffering.
Animal studies should be reported in accordance with appropriate reporting standards, including ARRIVE where applicable. The Journal may reject a manuscript if significant unresolved concerns exist regarding animal welfare or ethical conduct.
18. Clinical Trial Registration
IRJ follows the current ICMJE recommendations concerning clinical trial registration. Clinical trials should be registered in a publicly accessible and recognized clinical trial registry in accordance with applicable ICMJE requirements.
The registry name and registration number should be reported in the manuscript. Prospective registration is expected when required under applicable standards. If registration was retrospective, authors should disclose this and provide an explanation.
Trial registration does not replace ethical approval, informed consent, or transparent reporting. Editors may compare information presented in the manuscript with the registered protocol when evaluating consistency between planned and reported outcomes.
19. Data Integrity and Research Records
Authors are responsible for the integrity and accuracy of the research data reported in their manuscripts. Data must not be fabricated, falsified, selectively manipulated, or presented in a way that materially misrepresents the findings.
Authors should retain original research data and relevant supporting documentation for an appropriate period in accordance with institutional, ethical, legal, and funder requirements.
When substantial concerns arise concerning the integrity or reliability of a submitted or published article, the Journal may request access to relevant data, protocols, statistical outputs, original images, or other supporting documentation necessary to evaluate the concern.
Failure to provide requested documentation does not automatically establish misconduct but may be considered together with other available evidence when assessing the reliability of the work.
20. Data Availability and Authors’ Access to Data
IRJ supports research transparency and responsible data sharing while recognizing legitimate ethical, privacy, confidentiality, legal, and intellectual-property restrictions that may apply to rehabilitation and health research.
Authors of Original Research Articles are encouraged to provide a Data Availability Statement describing whether and under what conditions the data supporting the study findings can be accessed. The Journal may require such a statement when appropriate to the research design, funder requirements, or applicable research standards.
Investigators should retain appropriate access to the data required to evaluate and publish their work. Authors should not enter into agreements with sponsors that prevent them from accessing study data, conducting independent analyses, interpreting the results, or publishing the research responsibly.
When data cannot be publicly shared because of participant privacy, ethical restrictions, confidentiality, legal requirements, or other legitimate reasons, these restrictions should be clearly explained where a Data Availability Statement is provided.
21. Image Integrity
Scientific images must accurately represent the original observations. Authors must not selectively enhance, remove, move, introduce, obscure, or manipulate features in a manner that changes or misrepresents the scientific meaning of an image.
Adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color may be acceptable when applied appropriately and when they do not remove, obscure, or misrepresent information. Equivalent adjustments should normally be applied consistently to the entire image.
The Journal may request original or unprocessed image files when questions concerning image integrity arise. Inappropriate image manipulation may result in manuscript rejection or post-publication action, including correction, retraction, or referral to an institution when warranted.
22. Reporting Guidelines and Research Transparency
IRJ considers transparent and complete reporting an important component of responsible research publication. Authors should provide sufficient methodological information to allow readers to understand, critically evaluate, and, where appropriate, reproduce the research.
As specified in the Journal’s Instructions for Authors, authors are required to follow an established reporting guideline when an appropriate guideline exists for the study design. Relevant standards include CONSORT for randomized controlled trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews, STARD for diagnostic accuracy studies, CARE for Case Reports, COREQ or SRQR for qualitative research, TRIPOD for prediction models, CHEERS for economic evaluations, and ARRIVE for animal research.
Compliance with a reporting guideline does not compensate for weaknesses in study design or methodology. Authors, reviewers, and editors share responsibility for ensuring that the methods, participant numbers, analyses, results, and conclusions reported in an article are internally consistent and scientifically appropriate.
23. Appropriate Citation Practices
References should be selected because they are relevant to the research question and genuinely support the statements for which they are cited. Authors are responsible for checking the accuracy and appropriateness of all references.
IRJ does not permit citation manipulation, including inappropriate self-citation, coercive citation, citation stacking, unnecessary addition of articles from a particular journal, or inclusion of irrelevant references for the purpose of increasing citation counts.
Reviewers and editors should not ask authors to add citations to their own work, the Journal, or another publication unless those references are genuinely relevant and improve the scientific accuracy, context, or completeness of the manuscript.
Authors should verify references against the original sources wherever reasonably possible and should not rely on unverified citations generated by automated or artificial intelligence systems.
24. Conflicts of Interest and Competing Interests
Public trust in peer review and scholarly publication depends partly on transparent management of relationships and activities that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, professional judgment.
All authors must disclose relevant financial and non-financial relationships and activities. Financial relationships may include employment, consultancies, honoraria, grants, stock ownership, patents, paid expert testimony, or other financial interests. Non-financial interests may include professional relationships, academic competition, personal relationships, institutional roles, or intellectual commitments that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the work.
The existence of a relationship or activity does not necessarily constitute misconduct or invalidate a manuscript. Disclosure allows editors, reviewers, and readers to evaluate potentially relevant interests transparently.
All submitted articles should include a Conflict of Interest statement. When no conflict exists, authors should explicitly state that no conflicts of interest were declared. Authors should comply with the Journal’s dedicated Conflict of Interest Policy and complete applicable ICMJE disclosure requirements when requested.
25. Funding and Role of the Funder
All sources of financial or material support should be disclosed in the Funding section of the manuscript. The funding organization and grant number should be provided when applicable.
Authors should disclose the role of the sponsor or funder in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; preparation or review of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication when such involvement exists.
When the funder had no role in these activities, authors may state this explicitly. Authors should not accept contractual restrictions that compromise their ability to access and analyze research data independently or that improperly prevent the publication of scientifically valid findings.
Funding arrangements and Article Processing Charges are separate from editorial decision-making. As stated in the Journal’s Financial Policies, editorial decisions are made independently of financial considerations.
26. Peer Review
IRJ applies a double-blind peer-review process as described in its Peer Review Policy. Submitted manuscripts first undergo editorial screening to assess scope, originality, ethical compliance, minimum scientific quality, and methodological suitability for external review.
Manuscripts proceeding to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate expertise. Additional reviewers or methodological or statistical expertise may be sought when necessary.
An Associate Editor or Handling Editor coordinates the review process and evaluates reviewers’ comments before making a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers provide expert recommendations, but they do not independently decide whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.
The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief. Editorials, Letters to the Editor, and selected invited contributions may undergo editorial assessment as described in the Journal’s Peer Review Policy.
27. Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers
Reviewers should provide objective, evidence-based, constructive, respectful, and timely evaluations of manuscripts within their areas of expertise. Reviewers should assess the scientific question, methodology, interpretation, reporting quality, relevance of references, and consistency of the evidence with the conclusions.
Reviewers should decline an invitation when they do not have sufficient expertise, cannot complete the review within an appropriate timeframe, or have a conflict of interest that prevents an impartial evaluation.
Reviewers should not make personal or derogatory comments about authors. Criticism should address the manuscript and should be expressed in a professional manner that assists editors in decision-making and, where appropriate, helps authors improve their work.
If reviewers identify suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, ethical concerns, citation manipulation, or another potential integrity problem, they should communicate their concerns confidentially to the Editor rather than making unsupported allegations directly to the authors.
28. Confidentiality of Peer Review
Submitted manuscripts are confidential and privileged communications. Editors, editorial staff, and reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, research data, and other information obtained through the editorial process.
Reviewers should not share manuscripts or confidential information with colleagues, students, trainees, or other individuals without authorization from the Journal. Unpublished data or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for personal, academic, competitive, or commercial advantage.
Information about a submitted manuscript should not be disclosed to individuals who are not legitimately involved in the editorial process except when disclosure is necessary for investigating an ethical concern and is consistent with appropriate procedures.
Confidentiality may need to be limited when allegations of misconduct require communication with an institution, ethics committee, funder, or another competent body. In such cases, the Journal will disclose only information reasonably necessary for the investigation.
29. Responsibilities of Editors
Editors are responsible for evaluating manuscripts fairly, consistently, independently, and on the basis of scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical acceptability, relevance to rehabilitation, and suitability for the Journal.
Editorial decisions should not be influenced by authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, personal relationships, political or religious views, ability to pay publication charges, or other characteristics unrelated to the scholarly merit of the manuscript.
Editors should protect confidentiality, manage conflicts of interest, select appropriately qualified reviewers, evaluate reviewer recommendations critically, and ensure that published articles meet the Journal’s scientific and ethical standards.
Editors should also take reasonable action when credible concerns arise concerning submitted or published material. Responsibility for the integrity of the scholarly record continues after an article has been published.
30. Conflicts of Interest of Editors and Reviewers
Reviewers, editors, editorial board members, and editorial staff must disclose relevant relationships or activities that could influence or reasonably appear to influence their judgment.
Reviewers should decline manuscripts when a conflict prevents an impartial assessment. Editors who have a significant personal, professional, academic, or financial conflict relating to a manuscript should not participate in its assessment or final decision.
A manuscript submitted by an Editor, Editorial Board member, employee, or individual closely associated with the Journal may still be considered for publication, but it must undergo an independent editorial and peer-review process in which the author has no influence over reviewer selection, reviewer reports, or the final decision.
The same principle applies to Guest Editors and manuscripts submitted to Special Issues.
31. Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions at IRJ are based on scientific and editorial considerations and are independent of commercial or financial interests.
The University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, as the Journal owner and publisher, and Negah Scientific Publisher, as the Journal’s co-publisher, support the Journal’s publication activities while respecting the independence of editorial decisions concerning individual manuscripts.
Article Processing Charges do not influence peer review or acceptance decisions. Authors’ ability or inability to pay should not influence scientific assessment, reviewer selection, or the editorial decision.
The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for final editorial decisions in accordance with the Journal’s Peer Review Policy.
32. Special Issues and Guest Editors
Special Issues and thematic collections published by IRJ are subject to the same standards of scientific quality, peer review, publication ethics, and editorial independence as regular issues of the Journal.
A Special Issue should have a clearly defined scholarly theme relevant to the Journal’s Aims and Scope. Guest Editors should possess appropriate expertise and should disclose any relevant conflicts of interest.
Guest Editors should not independently handle or make decisions on manuscripts when a conflict of interest exists. Manuscripts authored by Guest Editors, close collaborators, colleagues, or individuals with whom they have relevant relationships should be assigned to an independent editor.
The Editor-in-Chief and the Journal retain responsibility for the scientific and ethical integrity of all content published in a Special Issue. Appointment of a Guest Editor does not transfer the Journal’s responsibility for peer review, quality control, or the integrity of the scholarly record.
33. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Authors
IRJ applies a dedicated Artificial Intelligence Policy developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles, including current COPE and ICMJE guidance. Authors should consult that policy before using artificial intelligence or AI-assisted technologies in research or manuscript preparation.
Artificial intelligence systems, large language models, chatbots, or other AI-assisted technologies cannot be listed as authors because they cannot meet the requirements for accountability, approval, disclosure, and responsibility required of human authors.
Authors remain fully responsible for all material submitted to IRJ, including material generated, revised, analyzed, translated, or otherwise assisted by AI. Authors must verify the accuracy, originality, references, statistical information, interpretations, and conclusions of AI-assisted material.
Substantive or meaningful use of generative AI should be disclosed in accordance with the Journal’s AI Policy. When AI is used as part of the research method, data analysis, or generation of scientific figures or content, the use should also be described in the appropriate section of the manuscript.
Routine spelling, grammar, or basic language correction generally does not require disclosure unless otherwise specified in the Journal’s Artificial Intelligence Policy.
34. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers and Editors
Manuscripts submitted to IRJ are confidential communications. Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts, figures, supplementary files, unpublished data, reviewer reports, or confidential editorial material to external AI systems when confidentiality cannot be assured, unless appropriate authorization has been obtained.
Reviewers remain personally responsible for the scientific assessment contained in their reports. AI-generated evaluations must not replace the reviewer’s own critical judgment and responsibility.
Editors remain responsible for all editorial decisions. Artificial intelligence may assist appropriate administrative or technical processes, but it must not independently determine acceptance, rejection, correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction.
Additional requirements concerning AI use by reviewers and editors are provided in the Journal’s dedicated Artificial Intelligence Policy.
35. Complaints and Appeals
IRJ provides mechanisms for authors, reviewers, readers, and other interested parties to raise concerns about editorial processes, ethical issues, or published content.
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe a significant scientific, factual, or procedural error occurred during assessment. An appeal should explain the grounds for reconsideration clearly and should not consist solely of disagreement with a reviewer or editorial decision.
Complaints and appeals will be evaluated fairly and, where reasonably possible, by individuals who were not directly responsible for the matter under dispute. Relevant COPE guidance may be consulted when appropriate.
Complaints concerning publication ethics may be referred to the Editor-in-Chief, the Journal owner, the co-publisher, or another appropriate body depending on the nature of the concern.
36. Allegations from Readers and Whistleblowers
IRJ takes credible concerns regarding submitted or published work seriously regardless of whether they originate from authors, reviewers, readers, institutions, whistleblowers, or other sources.
Concerns will be evaluated on the basis of the evidence provided rather than solely on the identity or position of the complainant. Anonymous allegations may be considered when they provide sufficiently specific information or evidence to permit meaningful evaluation.
The Journal will seek to maintain confidentiality where appropriate, while recognizing that some investigations may require communication with institutions or other competent authorities.
Retaliation against individuals who raise genuine ethical concerns in good faith is inconsistent with the Journal’s commitment to publication integrity.
37. Corrections
IRJ may publish a correction when an error is identified in a published article that affects its accuracy, interpretation, attribution, or completeness but does not invalidate the article as a whole.
A correction should clearly identify the affected article and explain what has been corrected. The correction should be linked to the original publication, and the status of the article should be updated through the Journal’s applicable publication and CrossMark procedures.
Errors in author names, affiliations, authorship information, numerical results, tables, figures, or other scientifically meaningful information may require formal correction when the scholarly record would otherwise be inaccurate.
Minor typographical errors that have no effect on scientific meaning or interpretation may not require a formal correction.
38. Retractions
IRJ follows COPE guidance when determining whether a published article should be retracted. Retraction may be appropriate when there is clear evidence that findings are unreliable because of major error or misconduct, fabrication or falsification, plagiarism, serious redundant publication, unethical research, manipulated peer review, or another problem that substantially undermines the integrity of the article.
The primary purpose of retraction is to correct the scholarly literature and protect readers rather than to punish authors. Retraction decisions should therefore focus on the reliability and integrity of the published record.
A retraction notice should be clearly identified, linked to the affected article, freely accessible, and state the reason for retraction and the party issuing the notice. The original article should normally remain available as part of the scholarly record but should be clearly identified as retracted.
The Journal will normally seek information from the authors before making a retraction decision. However, unanimous agreement of the authors is not required when sufficient evidence demonstrates that retraction is necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.
39. Expressions of Concern
IRJ may publish an Expression of Concern when substantial concerns have arisen regarding the integrity or reliability of a published article but the available evidence is inconclusive or an institutional or other investigation is still in progress.
An Expression of Concern is intended to alert readers to significant unresolved questions without prematurely concluding that misconduct occurred or that the article must be retracted.
When sufficient evidence becomes available, the Journal will reassess the case and take appropriate action. This may include removing or updating the Expression of Concern, publishing a correction, or retracting the article.
Expressions of Concern and subsequent updates should be linked appropriately to the original article and reflected in relevant CrossMark information.
40. Withdrawal of Manuscripts
Authors wishing to withdraw a manuscript that is under consideration should submit a written request to the Editorial Office explaining the reason for withdrawal.
A manuscript is not considered formally withdrawn until confirmation has been provided by the Journal. Authors should not submit the same manuscript to another journal while it remains under active consideration by IRJ.
Failure to respond to editorial correspondence after appropriate reminders may result in administrative closure of a submission. Administrative closure is distinct from withdrawal initiated by the authors and from retraction of a published article.
Once an article has formally entered the scholarly record, significant concerns should normally be addressed through correction, retraction, Expression of Concern, or another appropriate post-publication mechanism rather than by simply removing the article.
41. Post-Publication Discussion
IRJ supports responsible scientific discussion after publication. Readers may communicate substantive comments, critiques, or concerns about published articles to the Editorial Office or through other mechanisms available through the Journal.
When appropriate, authors may be invited to respond to scientific criticism. A concern will be evaluated on its scientific or ethical merits and will not be dismissed solely because the article has already completed peer review and publication.
If post-publication discussion identifies an error or raises a substantive concern regarding the integrity or reliability of an article, the Journal will determine whether further investigation or editorial action is required.
Letters to the Editor may also provide a formal mechanism for scholarly discussion of published research when appropriate.
42. CrossMark and Version Control
IRJ participates in CrossMark to help readers identify the current authoritative status of published content and determine whether an article has been corrected, retracted, or otherwise updated.
Significant post-publication changes, including corrections, retractions, and Expressions of Concern, should be linked to the original publication and recorded through the Journal’s applicable CrossMark procedures.
The Journal seeks to preserve the history of the scholarly record transparently rather than making substantive changes to published articles without appropriate notice.
Detailed information is available in the Journal’s CrossMark Policy.
43. Preservation of Published Content
IRJ recognizes long-term preservation as an important component of maintaining the scholarly record. Published content is preserved through the Journal’s digital preservation arrangements and remains accessible in accordance with the Journal’s Archiving Policy.
Authors retain copyright to their published work, while the Journal maintains and preserves the published Version of Record in accordance with its Open Access and Copyright policies.
Post-publication changes should therefore be made through transparent mechanisms such as corrections, retractions, or Expressions of Concern rather than through unrecorded alteration of the scientific record.
The Journal’s Archiving Policy provides further information on preservation and author self-archiving.
44. Intellectual Property, Copyright, and Permissions
Authors are responsible for respecting copyright and other intellectual-property rights when preparing manuscripts for IRJ.
Previously published figures, tables, questionnaires, scales, substantial portions of text, or other copyrighted materials should not be reproduced or adapted without appropriate authorization when permission is legally required.
Obtaining permission does not remove the requirement to provide appropriate attribution to the original source. Authors are responsible for ensuring that licenses or permissions permit the intended form of publication and reuse.
Authors retain copyright to articles published in IRJ. Articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license in accordance with the Journal’s Open Access Policy.
45. Open Access and Publication Charges
IRJ is a fully open-access journal. Published articles are freely available online immediately upon publication under the terms of the Journal’s current open-access license.
The University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences financially supports substantial parts of the Journal’s editorial and publication activities. Authors are required to pay the Article Processing Charge specified in the Journal’s current Financial Policies after acceptance.
Article Processing Charges are independent of scientific and editorial decision-making. Payment or the authors’ financial circumstances must not influence peer review, editorial assessment, or the decision to accept or reject a manuscript.
The current amount and conditions of the Article Processing Charge should be obtained directly from the Journal’s Financial Policies because charges may be revised over time.
46. Errors Identified by Authors
Authors have an ongoing responsibility for the integrity of their published work. If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy after publication, the author should promptly inform the Editorial Office and cooperate with the Journal in determining an appropriate corrective action.
Reporting an honest error does not in itself imply research misconduct. The Journal seeks, where possible, to distinguish honest error from deliberate misconduct while ensuring that unreliable or inaccurate information is appropriately corrected.
Depending on the nature and significance of the error, the appropriate action may include a correction, retraction, or another transparent update to the scholarly record.
Failure to cooperate with a legitimate investigation may result in the Journal seeking information from co-authors, institutions, ethics committees, funders, or other relevant bodies.
47. Cooperation with Institutions and Other Journals
Some publication ethics concerns cannot be fully investigated by a journal. Institutions are generally responsible for conducting formal investigations into suspected research misconduct involving their researchers.
When appropriate and consistent with COPE guidance, IRJ may contact an author’s institution, research integrity office, ethics committee, funder, another journal, or another competent body to request information or investigation.
The Journal may also communicate with another journal when potentially overlapping publications or coordinated ethical concerns involve content published or submitted in more than one journal.
Only information reasonably necessary for the ethical investigation should be shared, and confidentiality and procedural fairness should be respected to the extent possible.
48. Publisher Principles and Educational Resources
IRJ encourages authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff to consult original international and publisher resources on publication ethics. These resources provide detailed guidance, flowcharts, case discussions, and educational materials that cannot be fully reproduced within a single Journal policy.
As a member of Negah Journals, IRJ applies and recommends the following publisher resources:
- Negah Principles on Publication Ethics
- Negah Guidelines and Flowcharts on Publication Ethics
- Negah Standards for Authors
- Negah Standards for Editors
- Negah Policies and Guidelines of Peer Review
- Negah Ethical Principles for Medical Research
- Negah Policies on Conflict of Interest
The Journal also encourages direct consultation of the current COPE Core Practices, COPE guidelines and flowcharts, and the current ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
Where a Journal policy provides additional requirements specific to IRJ, including the Peer Review Policy, Artificial Intelligence Policy, Conflict of Interest Policy, CrossMark Policy, Open Access Policy, Financial Policies, Archiving Policy, or Instructions for Authors, authors, reviewers, and editors should comply with that policy in addition to the general principles described on this page.
Copyright © The Author(s);
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC-By-NC 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Contact Information
