The publication ethics of the Journal of Iranian Studies are based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practice for Journal Editors (Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), 2011).

Editors' responsibilities:

Editorial decisions;
The editor and editorial board are responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal will be published. The editor evaluates the articles without taking into account the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors. The decision will be based on the importance, originality, and clarity of the article and the relevance of the work and its relevance to the scope of the journal. Existing legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism are also taken into account.

Confidentiality;
The editor and any editorial staff member may not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, prospective reviewers, other advisors, and the publisher.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest;
Unpublished material described in the submitted manuscript may not be used by the editor or editorial board members for their own research purposes without the express written permission of the author.

Reviewers' responsibilties:
During the review process, reviewers assist the editor and editorial board in making decisions and also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
If the referee concludes that he/she is unable to review the research in an article in a qualified manner within the time limit, he/she notifies the editor and withdraws from the review process.

Confidentiality;
Manuscripts submitted for review are treated as confidential documents. They are not shared or discussed with others unless authorised by the editor.

Objectivity standards;
Comments are made objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers clearly express their views with supporting arguments.

Recognition of sources;
Reviewers identify works not included in the reference section of the article. They indicate whether observations or arguments derived from relevant publications are compatible with the sources. Reviewers inform the editor of their personal views on the manuscript under review and any significant similarities or overlaps between the manuscript and other published papers.

Disclosure and conflict of interest;
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review are kept confidential and not used for personal advantage or gain. Reviewers may not evaluate manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive or collaborative relationships with authors or institutions.

Authors' duties:
Reporting standards;
Authors of original research reports should present an objective discussion of the significance and precise results of the work performed. Basic data must be correctly presented in the article. A paper should include sufficient details and references to allow others to reproduce the work. False or deliberately false statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention;
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study with the manuscript for editorial review and, if applicable, should prepare for the data to be made publicly available. In any case, authors should ensure accessibility to other authorised professionals for at least ten years after publication (preferably through an institutional or subject-based repository or other data centre), provided that the confidentiality of participants can be maintained. Legal rights to proprietary data do not prevent publication.

Originality, plagiarism and acknowledgement of sources;
Authors shall only submit entirely original work and/or cite other works as appropriate. Reference should also be made to other publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported.

Multiple or simultaneous publication;
In general, articles describing the same research should not be published in more than one journal. Submitting the same article to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Articles published elsewhere as copyrighted material should not be submitted. However, the submitting author(s) retain the rights to the published material under appropriate conditions. In the event of publication of the work, permission for others to copy, distribute, transmit, adapt and commercially exploit the work is deemed to be granted under the CC-BY licence. [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/]

Ownership of the paper:
Ownership should be limited to those who made significant contributions to the design, execution, or interpretation of the submitted work. All significant contributors should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author ensures that all contributing co-authors are included and that persons not participating in the author list are not included. The corresponding author will also verify that all co-authors have approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest;
Authors are obliged to disclose the financial sources, collaborations and conflicts of interest they have used in reaching the results and interpretations of their articles. All sources of financial support for project-based studies should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works;
When an author discovers a major error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, he/she is obliged to notify the journal editor or publisher immediately and to cooperate with the editor to withdraw the article or to correct it in the form of an erratum.

References;
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011, 7 March). Code of Conduct and Code of Best Practice for Journal Editors;
Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journaleditors_Mar11.pdf

Blind peer review is a method for ensuring that scientific publications are of the highest quality. Blind peer review is at the heart of good scientific publishing and is carried out by all reputable journals. Our reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the high standards of our journal and all manuscripts are subject to the blind review process outlined below.

Pre-Evaluation:
The pre-evaluation process consists of two stages. In the first stage, all manuscripts submitted for evaluation are subjected to a similarity check in the plagiarism software. Manuscripts with a similarity rate of 20% or more are returned to the author(s). In the second stage, the manuscripts are checked for compliance with the journal's editorial rules and scope. Articles that pass these stages are included in the blind review process. The author(s) of the article rejected at the preliminary control stage are notified within 1 week.

Editorial Review:
The editor is responsible for deciding whether to accept the articles referred to him/her into the refereeing process or to reject them without entering the refereeing process. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are not original enough, have serious conceptual and/or methodological flaws, have inadequate or poor English/Turkish language skills, or are outside the scope and purpose of the journal.
At this stage, the author(s) of the rejected article will be notified within 10 days after the article is taken into consideration. For all articles rejected without review, the editor will provide feedback and, where possible, suggest other suitable outlets.

Manuscripts found suitable for the refereeing process are sent to 2 referees who are experts in their fields. The positive report of at least 2 referees is required for the article to be published. In case of need, it is at the discretion of the editor to apply to the 3rd referee.

Referee Evaluation:
In the double blind review process, the information of both authors and referees is kept confidential. In order to allow this process, authors should not include their identity information directly or indirectly in their articles.

Beyond the need to remove names and institutional information from the title of the manuscript, there are other important edits that need to be made to ensure that the manuscript is properly prepared for double blind peer review. Some considerations to assist in this process are as follows:

Use the third person singular pronoun when referring to previous work by the author(s), e.g. "as previously mentioned (Anonymous, 2007)" instead of "as previously mentioned"

In the text, cite works published by the author as follows (Anonymous, 2007). In the bibliography, the appropriate notation is as follows. (Anonymous, 2007, details omitted due to blind refereeing).

If you have received project support or funding from any private or public institution or organisation within the scope of the study, do not share any information about it. This information will be added at the layout stage if the manuscript is accepted.

Do not thank anyone in the article. This information will be added at the layout stage if the manuscript is accepted. When naming the article file, do not use your name and identity information, and make sure that your name is not mentioned in the document properties.

Our referee database is continuously updated and referees are randomly assigned taking into account their areas of expertise. The points we expect our referees to take into account in the evaluation of the manuscript are as follows:

Originality and contribution to literature

Of potential interest to a wide range of social scientists and/or practitioners

Candidate for the interest of a wide readership

Comprehensive evaluation of the existing literature

Methodology, analysis and interpretation competence

A clear, concise, and fluent style of expression

Reviewers are asked to provide comments to authors without disclosing their identity. Reviewers are also given the option to make confidential comments to the editor. Comments to the author(s) are also visible to other reviewers.

Please note that language correction is not part of the blind review process. However, reviewers are encouraged to make suggestions for improving the language and style of the manuscript.

In general, the refereeing process is completed within 2-3 months. If the referees' opinions contradict each other or if the referee report is delayed for any reason, another referee opinion will be obtained. If necessary, revised manuscripts may be sent back to the author(s) for further revision. Reviewers and/or the editor may request more than one revision, and additional reviewers may be invited at any time to evaluate the manuscript.

Final Evaluation:
The final decision is made by the "Editorial Board" for all articles that have been favourably evaluated by the referees and reached the publication stage. At this stage, the Editorial Board re-examines the article and checks whether the content of the article is compatible with the referees' decisions. Although the referee reports are positive, the Editorial Board may refrain from publishing the article in case of force majeure that the scope and rules of the journal are violated. In this case, the decision is communicated to the author(s) together with the referees' recommendations.