Publication Ethics

Code of Ethics for Research and Scientific Publications of the University of Religions

In this code, the policies of publications are expressed to guarantee the ethical behavior of all participants in the mentioned process. This code of ethics is applied for all submitted papers to the publications of the University of Religions from July 2012 which may be revised and modified by the publications authorities. This code has been set up in three parts for authors, editors and reviewers who are asked to study precisely to ask the editor of the publication any queries with the help of Religious papers site.  

The Code of Ethics for the Authors

Originality

As an author begins submitting an article, the article should be a novel and original task. The author is not allowed to submit an article whose part is being studied somewhere else. He/ she cannot submit the article whose part is being studied and assessed to another journal as well. The submitted journal either part of it or the whole in Persian or any other languages is not allowed to be accepted which has been published previously or is going to be published in the  the future.

Authors should express their primary ideas and tasks explicitly even they have been revised and quoted objectively. If precise sentences or paragraphs are seen in a research paper which seems it is an extract from an essay or the citation from another author, this sentence should be put in quotation mark. The essay ought to specify the origin of each applied datum and also all data. If specific data collection is applied by another author or this author, it should inform the other published or unpublished tasks.

Authors should not submit the article which has been previously submitted to this journal, assessed and finally disapproved by the editor. If the first version was disapproved and the author is willing to submit a modified version for assessment, the essay resubmission justification should be clearly explained for the author or the editor. The permission for essay resubmission for the second time is possible in particular situation.

Plagiarism

The article registration will inform all authors by sending an email in the site of Religious Inquiries. It is evident that inserting the author `s name in the article is considered as his / her main role in writing the essay if the essay authors have no role to write the essay and their name has not been mentioned. It is necessary to inform the received information by email immediately. All the authors of the article are responsible for the origin of the work. All assessment rights for the plagiarism in the journal are reserved.

Plagiarism has a variety of forms:

  1. To insert the authors and researchers ` names who have no role in the article
  2. To copy or repeat the most significant part of another article ( even the copied article is related to the author of  new essay  )
  3. To show the outcome and results of the  others ` researches to his own
  4. To express false results , in contrast with scientific findings or distort the outcomes of the research
  5. Continuous publishing by a single author in some journals.
  6. To apply unreliable data or manipulate research data

Plagiarism items will be studied by the journal editors for preserving the validity and the efforts of researchers without any overlook or indulgence based on the level of plagiarism then legally pursued as following:

  1. Journal will be disapproved and in case of publishing, it will be disappeared on the site
  2. The name of the authors will be inserted in the blacklist journals of University of Religions and Denominations.

  3. It will be prosecuted by qualified legal and judicial references
  4. By writing an official letter, the plagiarism file is shared with other related domestic and foreign journals
  5. By writing an official letter to the Ministry of Science and Information Technology, ISC, universities, institutes, journals or wherever the author has used the printing rate of this paper, they are informed  the procedure

Conflict of Interest

The author should express the resources of financial scheme in the text of paper then applies to submit it.  Each of the mentioned resources should be printed with article. If the type of situation which shows the contrast is doubtful, it should be clarified, any item in the field of conflict of benefits should inform the editor or the publishing office. The responsible author can recommend the probable reviewer for the paper at the time of submitting the essay to journal. Authors ought to avoid any probable contrasts or its action in selecting the editors and reviewers. This kind of conflict of benefits is not only applied for the responsible author but also includes all the authors ` colleagues in the paper.

The examples of possible Conflict of Benefits are as following:

  1. One of the authors in the very institution or the organization who is reviewer or mentioned editor
  2. One of the authors, member of the thesis committee who has been reviewer or editor and vice versa
  3. One of the authors, editors or reviewers who are the coauthor in another article or, had been coauthor of an article in the past two years.

Authors should not introduce or name the people whom they know that they have studied the previous article and have put forward their hypothesis because this movement is in contrary with the hidden assessment process of the article automatically.

Manuscripts submitted by authors from our institution or from our reviewers' board should be reviewed by referees from outside. papers submitted by reviewers and the Editorial Committee for review or revision and resubmission by the author if necessary.

 

Double-blind peer review

Journal follows a Double-Blind peer review in which the authors do not know the reviewers and vice versa. The authors should respect the confidentiality of the assessment process and don’t reveal their identity to reviewers and vice versa. For instance, article should not include any information like self-revelation in a way that the reviewer can identify the author.

Authors should not publish their submitted papers on sites (either articles or first versions) because authors can be identified easily by reviewers in websites.

Authors should not mention the people as editor or reviewer where their previous article or previous copy has been studied and suggested his recommendations because this awareness or knowledge is in contrary with Double-Blind peer review process.

 

Precision

Authors are finally responsible for the whole content of the submitted paper to the journal. Authors are in charge of representing a precise perspective of the done research as well as an objective debate especially for the research importance.

Authors should report their findings thoroughly, not to eliminate data relevant to the text or structure of research questions. Regardless of supporting the expected outcomes or being in contrast, results should be reported. Authors should present the features or relevant characteristics of their research, their findings and interpretation precisely. Fundamental suggestions, theories, methods, indexed and research schemes relevant with findings and their interpretations should be revealed and subjected.

The article should contain ample details and resources in a way that researchers access to the same data collection to repeat the research.

If an author discovers a mistake or an important carelessness , he / she is responsible for informing the editor and the procedure immediately to cooperate with the article modification or revision . If the author or publication, by a third person or party,  understands that the published paper is suffering from a monumental error, the author is responsible for applying the article modification or revision as well as providing the evidence for editor based on the precision and correction of the main article.

 

Authorship

All the mentioned authors should work seriously in research paper to be responsible for the results. The authorship or compilation should be shared in proportion with different supporting .

 Authors should accept the responsibility and validity of the task which include the authorship validity or compilation, only for the task which they have done practically or they have helped . Authors should typically list the name of the student as the main coauthor in the paper with multiple authors which has adapted from the student`s thesis or dissertation.

The responsible author who submits the paper to journal should send one sheet or one version of article to all shared coauthors to satisfy them by paper submission and publishing.

 

Human rights

Authors are in charge of preserving and supporting privacy, human munificence, human freedom and welfare as well as research participants. The papers which are involved in human affairs (field studies, simulations, interviews), should be done in accordance with human rights regulation necessities in the university author.

 

Being up to date             

Authors should act quickly and appropriately to revise and modify the articles. If an author cannot act before deadline (maximum one month), should contact with the editor for extension or refusal from assessment process at once.

 

Code of Ethics for Editors

Independence

Editors should preserve their pen and paper independence to work and make sure if authors are free to write. The editors are responsible for accepting or refusing the articles which typically depend on the idea and recommendations of reviewers, by the way, the articles which are inappropriate in the point of view of editors are probably refused without reviewers` assessment.

No biases

Editors should improve their position score and circumstances confidentially, constructively unbiased. Editors carry the essay review duty only based on scientific merits. Editors should act unbiased, without personal or ideological advocacy.

 

Conflict of Benefits

Editors should avoid any action which increases conflicts of benefits with its unreasonable aspect. For instance:

To avoid potential conflict of benefits, editor is not allowed to publish the article which is not clearly identified, reviewed or partly reviewed. Liability, writing authority and editing each article by editor, submitted to the journal, should be submitted by editor to another qualified person like previous editor or one of the members of board of editorial. To apply written considerations in article by the author or editor in any form is not acceptable.

Editors should avoid any paper study which is in contrast with their real or potential conflict of benefits. The contrast which is due to competitive, partnership, financial or other relations with any other companies, organizations or institutes related to article. The examples related to the relations which show conflicts of benefits of the editor or author are:

  1. Both the author and editor have been employed by one institute
  2. Editor has been one member of thesis committee of author or vice versa
  3. The editor and the author are currently coworkers and coauthors in another article or have been coauthors in an article in past two years.

 

Double-Blind peer review

Publication follows a Double-Blind peer review in which authors do not know reviewers and vice versa. The articles of the magazine seem not to be assessed mutually and stealthily. Assessment standard should be expressed crystal clear.

Confidentiality

Editors and their board of editorials are not allowed to reveal relevant information of the article to anyone but reviewers and authors. Official and formal procedures should be determined to preserve the confidentiality of assessment process.

Editors are expected to make sure the confidentiality of Double-Blind peer review process and lack of information revelation which may reveal the authors` identity to reviewers and vice versa. Reviewers` anonymity can be breached only when reviewers permit editors to reveal their identity.

Editors should make sure that their  board of editorials are compatible and coordinated with them .Some parts of a submitted article which has not been published, are not allowed to be used in a personal research of an editor without the author `s written permission. Confidential ideas or information which has been got by article assessment should be preserved privately not to be used toward private benefits.

Assessment quality

Typically, two reviewers are invited to express their idea about an article. Editor should evaluate all assessments qualitatively. Editor may rarely edit an assessed article before submitting to the author (for example, for eliminating an expression which reveal the reviewer`s identity or does not send the assessed article in case it is not constructive or appropriate. Rankings and scores of assessment quality as well as other functional features assessed periodically by the editor to make sure of optimized operation of  journal.

These scores and rankings should help decision makings in the field of reappointment of reviewing team and continuous requests. Individual operation data should be accessible for editors and kept confidentially.

 

Being up to date             

To guarantee the articles assessment and quick response to the authors ` requests about assessment status  in a determined deadline ( maximum one week after receiving  the article ) editors should apply primary assessment and reviewer selection.

 

 Quality of decision

Editors are responsible for describing the decisions of the board of editorials for authors and their articles. Editors should write high quality letters where these letters represent the combination of the reviewers` recommendations and extra suggestions for another author. Editors should not attach the result of the decision in the letter format without explanation to the advice and suggestions of the reviewer.

 Precision

As the editor receives convincing evidence from reviewer based on false concept or results of an unpublished article, should inform procedure to the author. If similar evidence about an article were published, editor should apply an emergency modified publishing, return previous one, and express relevant matters with other notes appropriately.

Authority

Editor is responsible for final authority and responsibility of the journal. They should respect journal formation (such as readers, authors, reviewers, editors, staff of the board of editorial) and try his / her best for the truthful and honest content of the journal as well as continuous improvement. Editor should select members of the board of editorial based on written assessment board, determine their responsibilities and evaluate their actions regularly.

Operation

Editor should design the operation index of journal. Journal is going to be published based on annual auditing related to admission level, publishing intervals, submitted articles percentage for revision and foreign revision as well as the operation data.

Operation indexes ought to improve the journal operation for assessing the revolution of articles along with publishing processes.

 

Code of Ethics for Reviewers

Reciprocal communication

Evaluation and studying are professional activities for journals which have valued the whole profession to be encouraged. It is usually expected that the researchers who submit their articles in a journal accept the journal invitation for their article assessment.

 

Right to refuse and rejection

Abstaining or rejection of an article assessment based on time or status is essential. For example, a reviewer who is not qualified enough to review a research paper should abstain from assessing the article. By potential conflicts of benefits, reviewers should abstain from their assessment. If the reviewers are asked to assess an article which has been previously assessed, they should inform the editor of primary evaluation details unless they are asked to reassess.

 

Double-Blind peer review

Publication has a process of a Double-Blind peer review. Reviewers should abstain from assessing the articles which they have previously provided written suggestions in first version. If a reviewer is aware of the author`s identity or coauthor`s identity, is involved naturally in assessing the article. Reviewers are also responsible for avoiding writing, telling and doing whatever reveals their identity for the author.

Conflict of Interest

Generally, reviewers should abstain from assessing the articles which they think they are involved in conflicts of benefits such as shared financial, organizational and personal benefits or any connections with other companies, institutes or related individuals with essay, the reviewers who may have conflicts of benefits in the field of a special article. This conflict should be clarified for the editor to determine the appropriate level of assessment. For instance, there is a situation where the reviewer is editing and evaluating a similar article in that journal or another along with a similar research paper, keep in mind that under the process of Double-Blind peer review, as reviewers do not know the authors, it is unlikely that reviewers are aware of the involved conflicts of benefits among authors. Thus, they are not limited through these conflicts. If reviewers become aware of such conflicts, they should inform the editor of journal.  

 No biases

Reviewers should assess articles objectively, fairly and professionally. They are recommended to avoid any personal bias in their reviews.

Confidentiality

Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the assessment process. It is important to recognize whether this article is confidential or not. Reviewers should not discuss anyone except editor about article and they are not allowed to transfer the essay information to someone else. If reviewers are suspected to wrong deed should inform editor confidentially, not expressing their worries to other departments till official announcement.

Precision

To assess the article and say recommendations to author (authors), reviewers should always know that assessment influence practical review. Reviewers should be honest with authors about their relevant article worries.

Reviewers ought to define and support their scientific review sufficiently and, it means they should provide details and ample information for editor to justify their advice to author. Reviewers cannot be bipolar, for instance, on the one hand, very friendly and intimate assessments facing with author and on the other hand, very bitter assessment in person discussion with editor.  

Punctuality

Reviewers should act quickly in their assessing and reviewing. If a reviewer cannot review his task in a determined deadline (maximum one month) he/she ought to connect with editor for extending the reviewing time or new reviewer selection.

 

COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices

 

1. Editors

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

  • actively seeking the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes
  • encouraging and being aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing their journal’s processes in the light of new findings
  • supporting initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct
  • supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics
  • assessing the effects of their journal policies on author and reviewer behavior and revising policies, as required, to encourage responsible behavior and discourage misconduct
  • ensuring that any press releases issued by their journal reflect the message of the reported article and put  it into context.

2. Readers

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:

  • ensuring that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers including statistical review.
  • ensuring that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are clearly identified
  • adopting processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting including technical editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists
  • considering developing a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of non-research articles
  • adopting authorship or contributorship systems that promote good practice (i.e. so that listings accurately reflect who did the work) and discourage misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest  authors)

3. informing readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation

4. Relations with authors

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 Editors should 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:

  • reviewing author instructions regularly and providing links to relevant guidelines
  • publishing relevant competing interests for all contributors and publishing corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication
  • ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests)
  • respecting requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are well-reasoned and practicable
  • publishing details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct
  • publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles

5. Relations with reviewers

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:

  • encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects (including animals), inappropriate data manipulation and presentation)
  • encouraging reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism
  • considering providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications (e.g. links to cited references and bibliographic searches)
  • sending reviewers’ comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libelous remarks
  • seeking to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal
  • encouraging academic institutions to recognize peer review activities as part of the scholarly process
  • monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this is of high standard
  • developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating this on the basis of reviewer performance
  • ceasing to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews
  • ensuring that the reviewer database reflects the community for their journal and adding new reviewers as needed
  • using a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (e.g. author suggestions, bibliographic databases)
  • following the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct

6. Relations with editorial board members

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:

  • having policies in place for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased review
  • identifying suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and  good management of the journal
    • regularly reviewing the composition of the editorial boardproviding clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties, which might include:
  • acting as ambassadors for the journal
  • supporting and promoting the journal
  • seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions
  • reviewing submissions to the journal
  • accepting commissions to write editorials, reviews and commentaries on papers in their specialist area
  • attending and contributing to editorial board meetings
  • consulting editorial board members  periodically (e.g. once a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenge

7. Relations with University of Religions and Denominations

7.1 The relationship of editors to University of Religions and Denominations 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 University of Religions and Denominations.

7.3 Editors have a written contract(s) setting out their relationship with University of Religions and Denominations.

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:

  • communicating regularly with University of Religions and Denominations

8. Editorial and peer review processes

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:

  • ensuring that people involved with the editorial process (including themselves) receive adequate training and keep abreast of the latest guidelines, recommendations and evidence about peer review and journal management
  • keeping informed about research into peer review and technological advances
  • adopting peer review methods best suited  for their journal and the research community it serves
  • reviewing peer review practices periodically to see if improvement is possible
  • referring troubling cases to COPE, especially when questions arise that are not addressed by the COPE  flowcharts, or new types of publication misconduct are suspected
  • considering the appointment of an ombudsperson to adjudicate in complaints that cannot be resolved internally

9. Quality assurance

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:

  • having systems in place to detect falsified data (e.g. inappropriately manipulated photographic images or plagiarised text) either for routine use or when suspicions are raised
  • basing decisions about journal house style on relevant evidence of factors that raise the quality of reporting (e.g. adopting structured abstracts, applying guidance) rather than simply on aesthetic grounds or personal preference

10. Protecting individual data

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:

  • publishing their policy on publishing individual data (e.g. identifiable personal details or images) and explaining this clearly to authors

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. Encouraging ethical research (e.g. research involving humans or animals)

11.1 Editors should endeavour 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:

  • being prepared to request evidence of ethical research approval and to question authors about ethical aspects (such as how research participant consent was obtained or what methods were employed to minimize animal suffering) if concerns are raised or clarifications are needed
  • ensuring that reports of clinical trials cite compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice.
  • appointing a journal ethics advisor or panel to advise on specific cases and review journal policies periodically

12. Dealing with possible misconduct

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. Ensuring the integrity of the academic record

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:

  • taking steps to reduce covert redundant publication (e.g. by requiring all clinical trials to be registered)
  • ensuring that published material is securely archived (e.g. via online permanent repositories, such as PubMed Central)
  • having systems in place to give authors the opportunity to make original research articles freely available

14. Intellectual property

14.1 Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with University of Religions and Denominations to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.

Best practice for editors would include:

  • adopting systems for detecting plagiarism (e.g. software, searching for similar titles) in submitted items (either routinely or when suspicions are raised)
  • supporting authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism
  • being prepared to work with University of Religions and Denominations to defend authors’ rights and pursue offenders (e.g.  by requesting retractions or removal of material from websites) irrespective of whether their journal holds the copyright

15. Encouraging debate

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:

  • being open to research that challenges previous work published in the journal

16. Complaints

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. Commercial considerations

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:

  • publishing a general description of their journal’s income sources (e.g. the proportions received from display advertising, reprint sales, sponsored supplements, page charges, etc.)
  • ensuring that the peer review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal
  • ensuring that items in sponsored supplements are accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and decisions about such supplements are not influenced by commercial considerations

 

Complaints and appeals

Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart.
Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further.

 

Copyright and License

All Religious Inquiriesarticles are published under a Creative Commons License. All authors will be presented with the option to make articles available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial (CC BY NC). Copyright in any article published by Religious Inquiries Open Access journal under the CC BY NC license is retained by the author(s). The Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY NC) permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

  Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial   (CC-BY-NC)

PDF

 Author retains copyright 

 Licence of copyright to all users to copy,   distribute, transmit and adapt the work, provided the author is attributed   and the use is non-commercial, ie not ‘primarily intended for or directed   towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation

 

Informed Consent:

In Religious Inquiries, all participants in human subjects' articles have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, etc.,should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the participants (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. informed consent for this purpose requires that an identifiable participants be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should disclose to these patients whether any potential identifiable material might be available via the Internet as well as in print after publication. participants consent should be written and archived either with the journal, the authors, or both, as dictated by local regulations or laws.