Authorship should be based only on substantial contributions to each of the three components mentioned below: 

1. Concept and design of study or acquisition of data or analysis and interpretation of data;
2. Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and
3. Final approval of the version to be published.

Participation solely in the acquisition of funding or the collection of data does not justify authorship. General supervision of the research group is not sufficient for authorship. Each contributor should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content of the manuscript. The order of naming the contributors should be based on the relative contribution of the contributor towards the study and writing the manuscript.

Acknowledgement

This optional part should include a statement thanking those who assisted substantially with work relevant to the study. Detailed information regarding all financial and material support for the research and work not limited to grant support, funding sources, and provision of equipment and supplies. 

Author's Contributions

We ask authors to make these statements, specifying the ways in which the authors contributed to the paper. Please capitalize the first letter of the first name and last names next to the appropriate category.

Example:  F.M. contributed in analysis and interpretation of data  

Conflict of Interests

All authors of submitting articles to the journal must disclose any conflict of interest they may have with an institution or product that is mentioned in the manuscript and/or is important to the outcome of the study presented. Authors should also disclose conflict of interest with products that compete with those mentioned in their manuscript. The Editor will discuss with the authors on an individual basis the method by which any conflicts of interest will be communicated to the readers.

Financial disclosure

Financial disclosure should apply for all manuscript submissions. Authors are expected to provide detailed information about any relevant financial interests or financial conflicts within the past 5 years and for the foreseeable future.
Authors who have no relevant financial interests are asked to provide a statement indicating that they have no financial interests related to the material in the manuscript.

Alteration to authorship

Any change in authors after initial submission must be approved by all authors. This applies to additions, deletions, a change of order to the authors’ names or a change to the attribution of contributions. Any alterations must be explained to the Editor. The Editor may contact any of the authors and/or contributors to ascertain whether they have agreed to any alteration.

 COPE Principle: 

What would JZD do facing a suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript?

a)  First of all, the reviewer has to inform the editor about redundant publication.

b)   Thank the reviewer and say that JZD is going to make a plan to investigate based on evident documents.

c) Then JZD will check the degree of overlap/redundancy;

• JZD may detect major overlap (same data or very similar data to other authors). In this case, JZD will ask the author to satisfy us that the submitted work has not been published elsewhere with acceptable pieces of evidence. After this, the author may respond or not. if they respond, the response may be unsatisfactory or the author may admit their guilt. In the case of guilt acceptance, JZD will inform the author of rejecting the submission, explain to them about the position and prospective expected behavior. The next step is to inform the author’s superior or else body responsible for research governance and let the author know about our action. If JZD would not receive any response from the author, JZD will contact all other authors. Again, there are two possibilities; receiving a response (which the following steps have been explained before) or not receiving a response. In the second case, JZD will inform the author’s superior or else body responsible for the research governance and keep on trying to obtain the acknowledgment of our letter. Either in this case or the case of receiving a satisfactory response (honest error, very junior researcher, etc.), JZD will let the author(s) know about rejecting submission, explain the position and the future expected behavior again. If no response would be received, JZD will continue to be kept in touch with the institution every 3-6 months. The last action in this process is informing the reviewer of the outcome.
• JZD might also detect minor overlap (some elements of redundancy). In this case, JZD will politely ask the author to provide strong references (from the original publication) and remove the overlapping material. Finally, notify the reviewer of the outcome.
• If JZD does not detect a significant overlapping, JZD would ask the reviewer to go on the process of review.

 What will JZD do facing a suspected redundant publication in a published manuscript?

a)    Firstly, the reader informs us about redundant publication.

b)   Thank the reader and say that JZD is going to make a strong plan to investigate the publication.

c)    Then JZD will check the degree overlap/redundancy;

• If JZD detects major overlap (same dataset or obvious author’s effort for hiding some piece of information by changing titles), it will ask the author to provide strong pieces of evidence of not being published the work elsewhere and clarify related documents. At this step, there are two possibilities: either the author responds or not. the response may be unsatisfactory or satisfactory; in the case of an unsatisfactory response/guilt admission, JZD is to inform other corresponding journals’ editors involved. Then JZD will inform the author’s superior or else body who is responsible for research governance, then notifies the author of its action, and finally let the reader know about the outcome. In contrast, if JZD would receive a satisfactory response, it will write to the author(s) to explain the position and determine the prospective behavior, then informs the reader of the outcome. Back in the beginning, not receiving the response was one of the possibilities; in this case, JZD will contact all authors. If they respond, the protocol would be the same as what has been explained before but if JZD would not receive a response again, JZD will contact with authors’ superior institution or anybody else responsible. not receiving a response, keep contacting the institution every 3-6 months. If JZD would receive a response, it will act the same as in the case of receiving a satisfactory response.
• JZD may also detect minor overlap (with some element of redundancy). In this case, JZD will politely ask the author to provide strong references (from the original publication); otherwise, JZD would contact the author’s superior or else body responsible for this issue. The final step includes informing the reader of the outcome.

 What will JZD do facing suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript?

a)    First of all, the reviewer should inform JZD about suspected plagiarism.

b)   Then JZD thanks the reviewer and would say that it is going to make a strict plan for investigating the manuscript.

c)    The next step is to check the degree of copying;

• If the plagiarism is strongly obvious and it seems that the dataset is provided by the own plagiarist, JZD will ask the author to make JZD sure that the given work originally belongs to the author and also enclose the pieces of evidence related to the plagiarism. The author may respond or not and the response itself might be either unsatisfactory or satisfactory. In the case of unsatisfactory response, JZD will notify the author(s) about the rejection of submitted material, explain the position, and warn them about expected future behavior. Besides, it is of importance to inform the author’s superior or else body responsible for this issue. Then let the author(s) know about its (JZD’s) action and finally inform the reviewer of the outcome. If the response is satisfactory, JZD will inform the author(s) about the rejection of submitted material, ask them for revision, and notify them of prospective probable behavior. On the contrary, if JZD does not receive any response, it will try to make a connection with the author(s) anyway. Receiving a response would be followed by the provided protocol and if no response is received again, contact the author’s institution and ask for reflection of your concern to the author’s superior or anybody else who is responsible for research governance. If JZD does not receive any response, it would keep contacting the institution every 3-6 months or other higher responsible organs later.
• If there is minor copying of short phrases, JZD will ask the author politely to rephrase the copied phrases or provide the work with direct references from the original publication.
• In the case of facing redundancy, JZD proposes following the flowchart of redundancy.
• If there is no problem, JZD will just discuss the manuscript with the reviewer.

 What will JZD do facing suspected plagiarism in a published manuscript?

a)    Firstly, the reader should inform JZD about suspected plagiarism.

b)   Then JZD thanks the reader and would say that ii going to make a strict plan for investigating the manuscript.

c)    The next step is to check the degree of copying;

• If there is clear plagiarism (using a large portion of text), JZD will ask the author to make JZD sure that the given work originally belongs to the author and also enclose the pieces of evidence related to the plagiarism. The author may respond or not and the response itself might be either unsatisfactory or satisfactory. An unsatisfactory response will be followed by this strategy: JZD will contact all authors and inform them about its plan, ask them to publish a retraction, and notify the editor or other journals which are involved in the publication of the work that contains plagiarism. After that, JZD will inform the author’s institution, superior, or else body who is responsible for research governance. The next steps are to inform the author(s)of your action and also inform the readers and victim(s) of the outcome, respectively [The final step could be a direct result of the publication of a retraction]. If the response is satisfactory, JZD will make a connection with all of the authors, explain the position, let them know about the prospective expected behavior, and then will inform the readers/victim(s) of the outcome. in the case of not receiving any response, JZD will try to contact with all of the authors. If they respond, the JZD’s strategy will be the same as what has been explained recently but if they do not respond, JZD will inform the author’s institution, superior, or else body who is responsible for research governance. This process will be followed up every 3-6 months if an immediate response is not received.
• Detection of minor plagiarism would lead to a quite polite link with the author asking them to correct the work or provide it with references from the original work. Then try to reflect the journal’s action to the plagiarist.

 What will JZD do facing suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript?

a)    First of all, the reviewer should declare the suspicion of fabricated data.

b)   Then JZD thanks the reviewer and would say that it is going to make a strict plan for investigating the manuscript.

c)    It is of necessity to JZD ask another reviewer’s perspective.

d)   JZD will contact the author and explains concerns but not convict them directly. Now, there are two probabilities; the author might either reply or not. the answer itself could be unsatisfactory or satisfactory. If it is unsatisfactory, the JZD will inform all authors that it is going to contact the institution/regulatory body and ask them for an investigation. After this, the author may either be found innocent or guilty. Moreover, there is likely no satisfactory response. If the author would be found innocent, JZD is to apologize to the author and continue the process of review with another more careful reviewer and finally inform the reviewer of the outcome. If the author would be found guilty, JZD would reject the work and inform the reviewer of the outcome. in the case of receiving no or unsatisfactory response, JZD will request the regulatory body an inquiry. another scenario happens when the author provides a satisfactory explanation. The reaction of JZD is the same as the case in which the author has been found innocent. If the author would not respond, JZD will contact all authors. Again, they may either reply or not. while JZD receives an answer, it would act based on the given protocol. By contrast, if they would not reply, JZD will contact the author’s institution or anybody else who is responsible for research governance, even if it is necessary, coordinate with co-authors institutions. If JZD would receive no response, it will contact the regulatory body and ask for an inquiry. This step will be followed by what has been determined for the ambivalent situation in which the author would be guilty or not.

 What will JZD do facing suspected fabricated data in a published manuscript?

a)    Firstly, the reader should state the suspicion of fabricated data.

b)   Secondly, JZD thanks the reader and would say that it aims to investigate the manuscript.

c)    It is of importance to JZD ask another reviewer’s opinion.

d)   JZD will contact the author and explains concerns but not convict them directly. Now, there are two probabilities; the author might either reply or not. the answer itself could be unsatisfactory or satisfactory. If it is unsatisfactory, the JZD will inform all authors that it is going to contact the institution/regulatory body and ask them for an investigation. Here the author would either be found guilty or not. Besides, they possibly have no or an unsatisfactory answer. If the author would be guilty, JZD will publish the retraction and inform the reader of the outcome; while, if they would not be guilty, JZD will apologize to the author and inform the reader of the outcome. in the case of receiving no or an unsatisfactory response, JZD is to reflect and publish the issue and then inform the reader of the outcome or JZD will request the regulatory body an inquiry. a satisfactory reaction would be followed by apologies to the author and finally inform the author of the outcome. If the author would not respond, JZD will contact all authors. Again, they may either reply or not. while JZD receives an answer, it would act based on the given protocol. By contrast, if they would not reply, JZD will contact the author’s institution or anybody else who is responsible for research governance, even if it is necessary, coordinate with co-authors institutions. If JZD would receive no response, it will contact the regulatory body and ask for an inquiry. This step will be followed by what has been determined for the ambivalent situation in which the author would be guilty or not.

 What will JZD do facing a circumstance in which the corresponding author requests to add an extra author before publication?

a)    In the beginning, JZD will clarify the reason for the change in authorship.

b)   In the next step, JZD will check the consensus of all authors on adding an extra author. All of the authors could either agree or disagree with this idea. If all of them agree, JZD will complete the journal’s authorship declaration based on the added author and modify the contributor details. Finally, JZD proceeds with review/publication. On the contrary, if all of the authors would not agree, the process of review/publication would be stopped till the common consensus of all authors.

 What will JZD do facing a circumstance in which the corresponding author requests to remove an author before publication?

a)    In the beginning, JZD will clarify the reason for the change in authorship.

b)   In the next step, JZD will check the consensus of all authors on adding an extra author. All of the authors could either agree or disagree with this idea. If all of them agree, JZD will complete the journal’s authorship declaration based on the removed author, and it proceeds with review/publication. By contrast, if all of the authors would not agree, the process of review/publication would be stopped till the common agreement of all authors.

 What will JZD do facing the request for adding an extra author after publication?

a)    Firstly, JZD will clarify the reason for the change in authorship (detailed reason for omitting the author before publishing the work).

b)   Secondly, JZD will check that all of the authors agree with the addition of the extra author. If all of them would agree, JZD is authorized to correct the publication. If authors would not agree, JZD will explain to them that the work would remain uncompleted till their common agreement but it is of importance that JZD will act completely unbiased. There are two possibilities in this step; if all of the authors would agree, JZD will correct the publication. If the authors cannot still agree, the authors’ institution(s) will intervene and make the final decision. JZD will correct the publication if the institution wants it this way.

 What will JZD do facing the request for the removal of an author after publication?

First of all, JZD will clarify the reason for the change in authorship (detailed reason for this removal). There are three possibilities; on one hand, the author(s) might give an acceptable reason for this change; so, JZD will check whether all of the authors agree with this change. If they do, then it will correct the publication. On the second hand, the author(s) may claim fraud. In this case, JZD will follow the protocol of facing fabricated data. On the third hand, authors likely have different opinions. In this case, JZD will ask each group to state their reason in a letter that would be published by JZD. Authors might write their letters. JZD will link these two groups and inform each of them about the opposite opinion. Authors may respond and JZD could publish both letters. Also, authors might not respond and accordingly, JZD will publish the minority view letter. On the contrary, maybe the authors do not wish to write a letter. In this case, based on the consensus of all of the authors, JZD will correct the publication.

 What will JZD do if it suspects ghost, guest, or gift authorship?

At the first step, it will review the acknowledgment section and authorship declaration and/or send a copy of the journal’s policies to the author and ask them to clarify the accuracy of the list of authors and/or request the contributor's detailed information. The next step comprises four categories; 1) The contributors' list lacks data analyzer (s). Here the “ghost” would be identified; so, JZD will request the addition of a related author. After that, JZD will get the agreement of all authors about the authorship change based on the journal’s policies, it will consider that in the case of senior authors, JZD will inform their superior(s), and then proceeds with the review/publication. 2) When the listed author does not meet the criteria, the “guest” or “gift” would be identified. JZD will propose the removal of them from the acknowledgment section. After that, JZD will get the agreement of all authors about the authorship change based on the journal’s policies, it will consider that in the case of senior authors, JZD will inform their superior(s), and then proceeds with the review/publication. 3) JZD might receive a satisfactory explanation of the author’s list; so, directly could proceed with the process of review/publication. 4) JZD may still remain doubtful and need more information. It will contact directly with each author and after that will follow the next step again (which has been explained at the beginning of the paragraph).

 What will JZD do if a reviewer suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest (COI) in a submitted manuscript?

a)    First of all, the reviewer (or editor) raises ethical concerns about the manuscript.

b)   JZD will thank the reviewer and states that it is going to make a careful plan of investigation.

c)    For the next step, the authors have to supply relevant details. This answer would be satisfactory or unsatisfactory or even no response might be received. In the case of a satisfactory response, JZD will apologize to the authors and continue the process of review. If an unsatisfactory or no response would be received, JZD will inform the author that the work would be stopped till the concern becomes resolved and also notify the author’s superior. If the issue would be resolved successfully, JZD will apologize to the author, proceed with the review, and would inform the reviewer of the outcome. if there would be unsatisfactory or no response again, JZD will contact the author’s institution every 3-6 months till concluding a proper investigation. Here the issue could become resolved which would be followed by the given protocol and if an unsatisfactory or no response would be received for the third time, JZD will refer to other authorities and finally inform the reviewer of the outcome.

 What will JZD do if a reader suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest (COI) in a published manuscript?

a)    Firstly, the reader informs the editor about the author’s undisclosed COL.

b)   JZD will thank the reader and states that it is going to make a careful plan of investigation.

c)    JZD will contact the author and express the concerns. If the authors would provide suitable details, JZD will thank the authors but point out the importance of omission, publish the correction, and finally inform the reader of the outcome. on the contrary, if the authors would deny COL, JZD will explain the journal’s policy/COL definition and obtain a signed statement from the authors about all relevant COLs and finally inform the reader of the outcome.

 What will JZD do if it suspects an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript?

a)    The reviewer (or editor) raises ethical concerns about the manuscript.

b)   JZD will thank the reader and states that it is going to make a careful plan of investigation.

d)   In this step, the authors have to supply relevant details. This answer would be satisfactory or unsatisfactory or even no response might be received. In the case of a satisfactory response, JZD will apologize to the authors and continue the process of review. If an unsatisfactory or no response would be received, JZD will inform the author that the work would be stopped till the concern becomes resolved and also notify the author’s superior. If the issue would be resolved successfully, JZD will apologize to the author, proceed with the review, and would inform the reviewer of the outcome. if there would be unsatisfactory or no response again, JZD will contact the author’s institution every 3-6 months till concluding a proper investigation. Here the issue could become resolved which would be followed by the given protocol and if an unsatisfactory or no response would be received for the third time, JZD will refer to other authorities and finally inform the reviewer of the outcome.

 What will JZD do if it suspects a reviewer has appropriated an author’s ideas or data?

a)    The author states the reviewer’s misconduct.

b)   JZD will thank the author and say that it is going to investigate the issue.

c)    JZD will retrieve all files (MS and reviews). Here there are two types of reviews; open (which the reviewer is known for the author) and anonymous (the reviewer is unknown for the author). In the case of open reviews, JZD will try to get as much documentary evidence as possible from the author and other sources but it is noteworthy that it does not have to contact the reviewer till completing the process of assessment. Then JZD will review the pieces of evidence and become sure whether the author’s allegation is well-founded or not. if it would be well-founded, JZD will ask the reviewer for an explanation. This explanation would be satisfactory or JZD may receive no or an unsatisfactory explanation. A satisfactory explanation would be followed by a discussion with the author. No or an unsatisfactory explanation would lead JZD to contact the reviewer’s institution requesting an investigation. JZD will consider that remove the reviewer from the database during the investigation. If the reviewer becomes justified, JZD will discuss it with the author. If no response is received, JZD will keep in contact with the institution every 3-6 months and let the author know the progress. If the reviewer would be found guilty, JZD will remove them from the database, inform the journal and the author about the progress. If the author’s allegation would not be well-founded, JZD will discuss with the author; if it would be illuminated that the author’s allegation is well-founded, then JZD will follow the given protocol. In the case of anonymous review, if the author would accuse the actual reviewer, the strategy is the same as what has been explained for the open review but if the author would accuse a person who is not included in the list of JZD’s reviewers, JZD will check the links between the accused person and the named reviewer. During all this process, JZD will keep in touch with actual reviewers and consider that do not tell about the paper to others. JZD will explain the situation to the author.

 Copyright and Open Access License

This is an open-access journal distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC). All articles will be offered under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC) License (http://creativecommons.org/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and the source.

The corresponding author should complete and sign the authorship (Authots agreement) form and then  send  it by email to JZD@tabrizu.ac.ir.  The form is available to download by clicking on Competing interests statement form. 

Also, the copyright form is available to download by clicking on copyright form.