Ethics & Integrity


Ethical Consideration

  1. Website
  2. Name of Journal & Abbreviation
  3. Peer-review Process
  4. Ownership and Management
  5. Governing Body
  6. Editorial Board
  7. Copyright and Licensing
  8. Authors and Authors' Responsibilities
  9. Author Fees
  10. Publication Ethics
  11. Publishing Schedule
  12. Archiving Policy
  13. Revenue Sources
  14. Advertising
  15. Direct Marketing
  16. Publisher Principles: Codes of Conduct and Ethical Guidelines


1. Website
The journal’s Web site is available at: All required ethical and professional standards are available on the journal website.

2. Name of Journal & Abbreviation
The journal's title is "Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology". The corresponding journal acronym is "Iran J Allergy Asthma Immunol".

3. Peer-review process

Peer Review Policy

The journal is dedicated to implementing a double-blind peer review process in accordance with the COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices, as well as the ICMJE's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.

Peer Review Process

The decision to publish a paper is contingent upon editorial assessment and peer review. Initially, all papers undergo internal evaluation by an editorial committee comprising 2 or more members of the editorial board, primarily guided by the Editor-in-Chief's selection and decision. The primary objective is to determine whether rapid rejection is appropriate or if the manuscript should proceed to external review. Papers that are not aligned with the journal's aim and scope or fail to meet fundamental journal standards and requirements will be rejected at this stage to prevent delays for authors who may wish to pursue publication elsewhere. On occasion, a paper may be returned to the author with requests for revisions to aid editors in deciding whether it should be sent for review. Authors can anticipate a decision from this phase of the review process within 1 to 2 weeks of submission.

Manuscripts progressing to the review stage are evaluated by members of an international expert panel. All such papers undergo double-blind peer review by two or more reviewers, supervised by the journal section editor as well as the Editor-in-Chief. We take diligent measures to ensure that the author's identity remains concealed during the review process; however, authors bear the responsibility of ensuring that their prior publication details and other information do not inadvertently reveal their identity. Authors who disclose their identity within the manuscript will be considered to have waived anonymity, and the review will be conducted as single-blind (i.e., authors are unaware of reviewers' identities).

Our goal is to complete the review process within 4 to 8 weeks of the decision to review, although occasional delays may occur. Authors are advised to allow a minimum of 8 weeks from submission before reaching out to the journal. The final decision regarding acceptance rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers Role

Reviewers play a crucial role in enhancing the quality of the journal through the implementation of a double-blind peer review process. It is imperative that double-blind reviewers strictly refrain from revealing their identity in any manner.

If a reviewer finds that a submitted article lacks technical merit, cannot be reviewed promptly, or presents a conflict of interest, they should promptly decline the review assignment.

All submissions are treated with utmost confidentiality, and editorial authorization may be sought before incorporating any input from external parties.

Reviewers are not allowed to pass on an assigned review to another party and should promptly decline if faced with such a situation.

Given that reviewers form the foundation of the quality assessment process, it is their responsibility to ensure that published articles are of high quality and demonstrate originality. If a reviewer becomes aware that the article under review is simultaneously under consideration by another publication, it should be brought to the editor's attention.

While there are no rigid criteria for evaluating articles, assessments should be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the article's significance, quality, and originality. In general, the following aspects may be examined during a review:

  1. Structure and adherence to author guidelines
  2. Article's purpose and objectives
  3. Usage of transitions within the article
  4. Introduction and the provided conclusions/suggestions
  5. Appropriateness of references to support content
  6. Grammar, punctuation, and spelling
  7. Detection of plagiarism
  8. Suitability of the article for the intended audience

Ultimately, a reviewer's feedback plays a pivotal role in determining whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected. Reviewers are expected to thoroughly evaluate the assigned articles without any bias or conflicts of interest. The final evaluation and decision lie with the journal's Editor-in-Chief, who ensures the integrity of the peer review process.

Guidance for Peer Reviewers

Peer review constitutes the cornerstone of our commitment to upholding the quality and credibility of scientific and scholarly research. To ensure a rigorous and objective evaluation process, all manuscripts undergo double-blind review.

As a reviewer, your invaluable insights will guide the editorial decision-making process, overseen by the Section Editor and Editor-in-Chief. Even if a manuscript is not accepted, your constructive feedback will be shared with the author to aid in its improvement.

Confidentiality is paramount. If you are invited to review an article, please refrain from discussing its content with anyone else, even colleagues. Upon receiving an invitation, complete the journal's reviewing form promptly. Whenever possible, respond to all peer review invitations, and if an article falls outside your area of expertise or you cannot dedicate the required time, promptly inform the editorial office. At this stage, you might recommend a qualified colleague to review the manuscript, as authors depend on timely decisions.

Thoroughly acquaint yourself with the journal's Aims and Scope and the Author Instructions. Assess whether the submitted paper aligns with the journal's focus. Journal details are available under the "Journal Information" section.

Constructive and helpful reviews are fundamental. We encourage reviewers to maintain a firm yet courteous tone when providing feedback to authors. Reviews should objectively evaluate the manuscript in comprehensive terms. Make your recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, offering insights into your decision. Utilize the reviewing form to provide detailed answers to journal questions. If revisions are necessary for acceptance, offer suggestions for improvement. Conversely, if a manuscript's quality is insufficient for significant improvement, recommend rejection.

Additional guidelines:

  • Communicate with clarity, especially considering non-native English speakers.
  • Use simple language, avoiding convoluted or uncommon words that could perplex native and non-native speakers alike.
  • Organize your points with numbering, and reference page and line numbers when addressing specific aspects of the manuscript.
  • If requested to focus on specific parts, clearly indicate which areas you are addressing.
  • Apply the "golden rule" by evaluating the author's work as you would expect your own to be evaluated.
  • The Reviewer Score Sheet is confidential and only accessible to editors. Comments will be shared with authors.
  • Indicate if the manuscript requires language editing for grammar, punctuation, or spelling (a prompt is provided).

Your dedication to maintaining the integrity of the peer review process is greatly appreciated.


Privacy and Confidentiality

(In accordance with ICMJE's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals)

Respecting authors' confidentiality is of paramount importance in the manuscript review process. Authors entrust editors with their scientific endeavors and creative output, which can significantly impact their reputation and career. The disclosure of confidential details during manuscript review can violate authors' rights and integrity. Reviewers, too, have a right to confidentiality, which editors must uphold. Exceptions to confidentiality may arise in cases of alleged dishonesty or fraud; otherwise, it must be strictly maintained.

Editors are obliged not to divulge any information about manuscripts—such as their receipt, content, review stage, reviewer comments, or final disposition—to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This prohibition encompasses requests to employ the materials for legal purposes.

Editors are responsible for conveying to reviewers that manuscripts designated for review are privileged communications and belong to the authors. Consequently, reviewers and editorial staff must respect authors' rights by refraining from public discussions of the work or the appropriation of ideas prior to publication. Reviewers should refrain from retaining copies of the manuscript and should not share it with others unless granted permission by the editor. After submitting their reviews, reviewers should either return or dispose of the manuscript copies. Editors should not retain copies of rejected manuscripts.

Without the explicit consent of the reviewer, author, and editor, reviewer comments must not be published or otherwise disseminated. Ensuring privacy and maintaining the confidentiality of the manuscript review process upholds the integrity and professionalism of scholarly publishing.

COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts

The Journal is dedicated to adhering to and implementing the guidelines and flowcharts set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) throughout its review and publication procedures. For additional details, please refer to:

Conflict of Interest in the Reviewing Process

While we employ a double-blind peer review process, it's important to acknowledge that the research community can be closely interconnected. This means that reviewers might be familiar with authors due to their work. While you can certainly provide a fair assessment of an article authored by a friend or competitor, please keep the following guidelines in mind:

  1. Reveal Significant Conflicts of Interest: If you have a significant conflict of interest, it's crucial to disclose this information to the editor. This transparency helps maintain the integrity of the review process.

  2. Address Bias: If the conflict of interest could potentially lead to a substantial positive or negative bias in your review, it's advisable to decline the review request. Ensuring an impartial review process is paramount.

  3. Avoid Personal Judgment and Criticism: Maintain a focus on evaluating the article's content rather than resorting to personal judgment or criticism. Your assessment of the article itself is more likely to be well-received by the author and contribute to their improvement.

  4. Honesty Appreciated: Editors highly value honesty from reviewers about conflicts of interest. Even if this means they need to find an alternative reviewer, your candor is vital to upholding the quality and fairness of the review process.

By adhering to these guidelines, you contribute to the credibility and reliability of the double-blind peer review process. Your commitment to ethical reviewing practices benefits the scholarly community as a whole.


4. Ownership and Management

Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology is owned & published by Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) Journals Publishing House.

5. Governing Body

The Journal's Governing Body and their affiliations and contact information are available here.

6. Editorial Board
The Journal's Editorial Board and their affiliations & contact information are available at the journal page menu titled: "Editorial Board"

7. Copyright and Licensing

Our journal operates on the principle of immediate open access, ensuring that research is freely available to the public. This commitment facilitates a global exchange of knowledge among researchers and scholars.
All journal papers are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License. This license permits various forms of non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction of the content in any medium or format. It is important to provide proper credit to the original author(s) and acknowledge the source when using the content under this license.

While authors retain copyright ownership, they grant exclusive rights to the publisher* to distribute their articles. Authors also have the following rights:

  1. Sharing for Personal Use: Authors can share their articles in accordance with "Personal Use rights." This involves including the end user license and the DOI link to the version of the record in this journal.

  2. Retaining Intellectual Property Rights: Authors retain their intellectual property rights, including rights related to research data.

  3. Attribution and Credit: Authors are entitled to proper attribution and credit for their published work.

    *The granted rights include the authority to make and authorize commercial use.

**Personal Use Rights:

Authors are allowed to use their articles, either in full or in part, for scholarly, non-commercial purposes such as:

  1. Inclusion in the author's classroom teaching, including distributing copies in paper or electronic form.
  2. Distributing copies of the article (via email or other means) to known research colleagues for their personal use (not intended for Commercial Use).
  3. Including the article in a thesis or dissertation, provided it is not intended for commercial publication.
  4. Using the article in a subsequent compilation of the author's works.
  5. Expanding the article into book-length form.
  6. Creating other derivative works (not for Commercial Use).
  7. Reusing portions or excerpts from the article in other works.

8. Authors and Their Responsibilities

The role of the corresponding author is pivotal in ensuring effective communication with the journal throughout the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process. The corresponding author typically assumes responsibility for meeting the journal's administrative prerequisites. These prerequisites encompass providing comprehensive details of authorship, obtaining ethics committee approval, furnishing documentation for clinical trial registration, and gathering conflict of interest declarations. It is imperative that these requirements are meticulously fulfilled.

The corresponding author is expected to promptly address any queries raised by the editorial team during the submission and peer review stages. Additionally, they should collaborate with the journal by fulfilling any post-publication requests.

It's worth noting that the Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology upholds a policy that prohibits the addition of authors or changes to the first or corresponding authorship subsequent to the final acceptance of an article. If any author desires to be removed from the list of authors, they must provide a signed letter expressing their wish for removal. This letter should be co-signed by all other authors, confirming their agreement with the removal. Similarly, any alteration to the sequence of author names in the byline necessitates a letter, endorsed by all authors, indicating unanimity on the change.

In essence, the corresponding author serves as a conduit of communication with the journal, ensuring the fulfillment of administrative prerequisites, and collaborating seamlessly with the editorial team throughout the publication journey. Furthermore, the Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology maintains stringent guidelines regarding authorship adjustments after final acceptance, ensuring transparency and accountability in the publication process.


Originality and Avoiding Duplicate Publication

When submitting manuscripts to the journal, it is essential that the content is original and has not been published previously or submitted for publication elsewhere. This principle also extends to manuscripts that are concurrently under evaluation by other journals associated with Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS). Authors are required to adhere to this guideline rigorously.

Furthermore, it is imperative that authors address any potential copyright concerns when referencing figures or tables from other sources, such as different journals. Maintaining the integrity of intellectual property and proper attribution is crucial in scholarly publishing. Therefore, authors are responsible for resolving any copyright-related matters associated with the inclusion of such content in their manuscripts.

9. Author Fees
According to the policy of Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, corresponding authors are requested to pay the article processing and publication charge as mentioned here.

10. Publication ethics

The journal is committed to applying all codes and principles of conduct of the publisher, available at:
Details of the journal publication ethics consideration, codes, terms, and rules are:

Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology owned by Tehran University of Medical Sciences, is committed to applying ethics of publication, based on the COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices. You may find the journal’s code of publication ethics, here.

National Ethics Committee Approval Code

Based on Iran Ministry of Health & Medical Education regulations & rules, all submitted manuscripts to the journals should be registered with Iran National Committee for Ethics in Biomedical Research earlier and achieve the Ethics Committee Approval Code which should be submitted along with the manuscript and should be mentioned in the last part of manuscript material & methods section. Each Ethics Committee Approval Code will be verified online at the Iran National Committee for Ethics in Biomedical Research website available at:


Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology is dedicated to serving as a prominent conduit for the exchange of data, ideas, and information within the scientific research community. In pursuit of this objective, it is incumbent upon us to uphold a specific code of ethics. We strongly recommend strict adherence to the following ethical guidelines, as they significantly contribute to the elevated quality of the published works. This present code of ethics is formulated with the central aim of furnishing comprehensive guidance on the appropriate conduct expected from editors, authors, and reviewers throughout the scientific publication process.

Authors and Co-authors

Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology is dedicated to adhering to and implementing the "International Standards for Authors" as defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in the formulation and execution of the journal's review and publication processes, as well as in addressing relevant concerns. The International Standards for Authors can be accessed here, and authors are strongly encouraged to thoroughly comprehend and apply these standards to their work.

By submitting a manuscript, authors affirm that all co-authors have comprehensively reviewed and endorsed the manuscript and that all contributors consent to the manuscript's submission to the Journal. The Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology aligns with the recommendations set forth by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which stipulate that authorship must be grounded in the following four criteria:

  1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work.
  2. Drafting the work or critically revising it for significant intellectual content.
  3. Providing final approval for the version intended for publication.
  4. Undertaking the responsibility to address and resolve all inquiries regarding the accuracy or integrity of any portion of the work.

It is obligatory that all authors be properly credited upon manuscript submission. Contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgements section.

Additionally, authors are strongly advised to rigorously follow the ensuing code of ethics when submitting manuscripts. These codes are applicable to their original works or the works with which they have been affiliated during their tenure:

  1. Manuscripts submitted must encompass novel and original findings, data, and concepts that have not been submitted for publication elsewhere or published in other sources. Acts of data fabrication, result fabrication, intellectual property misappropriation, and plagiarism are categorically unacceptable, standing in opposition to the ethical responsibilities of an author.
  2. Information obtained from various sources should only be incorporated in the manuscript with the explicit consent of the source's owner or data provider.
  3. Proper attribution and citation should be employed for any referenced work. Authors are urged to meticulously verify references before manuscript submission.
  4. No form of undue promotion or solicitation should be pursued to facilitate publication. Authors should ensure that only individuals directly involved in the work are listed as authors.
  5. Authors and co-authors are responsible for meticulously reviewing and validating all results prior to submission. Any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed to the editor in advance. Authors are obliged to adhere to the Creative Commons licensing policy for publication.
  6. Upon receiving acceptance for publication, all authors are required to submit the copyright transfer form without exception.

These ethical guidelines underscore the commitment of the Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology to fostering a scholarly environment characterized by integrity, responsibility, and the highest standards of research and publication ethics.


Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology is devoted to adhering to and implementing the "International Standards for Editors" as outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in shaping and overseeing the Journal's review and publication procedures, as well as in addressing pertinent matters. The International Standards for Editors can be accessed here. This commitment extends to various roles, including the Chief Editor of the journal, Content Editors, Subject Editors, and Editorial Board members.

Editors within the Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology are entrusted with comprehensive responsibility for both editorial and technical determinations of the journal. It is imperative that any editor or officeholder refrain from intervening or providing input on editorial decisions related to any manuscript made by a fellow editor. Editors are obligated to approach submitted articles with impartiality and objectivity. In line with the journal's pursuit of swift publication, editors are advised to process manuscripts promptly and conscientiously.

The editors hold the ultimate responsibility for either accepting or rejecting a manuscript, even if the manuscript undergoes peer review. The final verdict rests with the relevant editor. Decisions and concerns concerning submitted articles must remain confidential and not be disclosed to any third party. In cases where an editor intends to publish an article, the handling of the article should be delegated to another editor.

Moreover, editors must refrain from incorporating information, data, theories, or interpretations from any submitted manuscript into their own work until that manuscript has been officially accepted for publication.


Reviewers play a pivotal role in contributing to the advancement of the journal's quality through their participation in the peer review process. As a peer-reviewed (blind referee) journal, it is imperative that reviewers uphold the principle of anonymity in all aspects.

Reviewers hold the responsibility of promptly declining to review an article if they perceive that it lacks the necessary technical qualification if conducting a timely review is unfeasible for them, or if there exists a conflict of interest with the article in question.

Confidentiality is of utmost importance, and all submissions must be treated as confidential. Editorial authorization might be sought for any external input received. It is essential that reviewers refrain from passing on an assigned article to another reviewer and, instead, decline the review immediately if they find themselves in such a situation.

Reviewers serve as the foundation of the overall quality process and are tasked with ensuring that published articles exhibit high quality and originality. In the event that a reviewer is aware that the article assigned for review is simultaneously being considered for publication elsewhere, they are encouraged to inform the editor.

While there are no rigid guidelines for analyzing an article, the assessment process should be conducted on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the article's significance, quality, and originality. In general, the following aspects should be evaluated during the review:

  1. Structure of the submitted article and its alignment with author guidelines
  2. Purpose and objectives of the article
  3. Effective use of transitions within the article
  4. Adequacy of the introduction and the conclusions/suggestions provided
  5. Appropriateness and sufficiency of the references to substantiate the content
  6. Grammar, punctuation, and spelling
  7. Detection of plagiarism
  8. Suitability of the article in meeting the intended purpose

A reviewer's feedback holds considerable influence in determining whether an article is accepted or rejected. Their evaluations constitute a major element within the peer review process. Reviewers are strongly encouraged to meticulously review the articles assigned to them, delivering feedback devoid of any biases. By doing so, reviewers actively contribute to enhancing the quality of the journal's publications.

Breach of Code

It is incumbent upon all members of our research community to uphold the established code of ethics in every conceivable manner. As an organization committed to the welfare of researchers and operating as a not-for-profit entity, the adherence to this code lies within the individual's internal responsibility, rather than being subject to external enforcement.

Within the Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, our committee members hold the authority to address instances where an individual is found to be in breach of the code of ethics. The committee is empowered to take appropriate actions to address such violations and ensure the integrity of our ethical framework is upheld.

Clinical Trial Registry

It is imperative that all clinical trials be registered in advance on a global clinical trial registry, such as At the point of manuscript submission, it is essential to furnish the clinical trial code as part of the submission process.

COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts

Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology is committed to following and applying guidelines and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics in its reviewing and publishing process and issues.

COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices

1. Editors

The Chief Editor is held responsible for all content published within the journal. This involves ensuring that:

1.1. The Chief Editor strives to cater to the needs of both readers and authors.

1.2. Continuous efforts are made to enhance and refine the journal.

1.3. Robust processes are in place to uphold the quality of published materials.

1.4. A commitment to freedom of expression is upheld.

1.5. The integrity of the academic record is preserved.

1.6. Business considerations do not compromise ethical and intellectual standards.

1.7. Corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies are promptly issued when necessary.

Best practices for editors encompass the following:

  • Actively engaging authors, readers, reviewers, and editorial board members to gather insights for improving journal processes.
  • Staying updated on research pertaining to peer review and publishing, and adapting journal processes in light of new findings.
  • Supporting endeavors aimed at mitigating research and publication misconduct.
  • Promoting initiatives that educate researchers about publication ethics.
  • Evaluating the impact of journal policies on author and reviewer conduct, and revising policies when needed to foster responsible behavior and discourage misconduct.
  • Ensuring that any press releases issued by the journal accurately reflect the article's content and context.

2. Readers

2.1. It is essential to provide readers with information regarding research funding sources and their potential involvement in the research and publication process.

Best practices for editors include:

    • Ensuring that all published research reports and reviews have undergone evaluation by appropriately qualified reviewers, including statistical review.
    • Clearly identifying non-peer-reviewed sections within the journal.
    • Implementing processes that promote accuracy, completeness, and clarity in research reporting, including technical editing and adherence to relevant guidelines and checklists.
    • Considering the development of a transparency policy to enhance disclosure regarding the origins of non-research articles.
    • Adopting authorship or contributorship systems that uphold ethical practices, accurately representing individuals who contributed to the work, while discouraging misconduct such as ghost and guest authorship.

3. Informing readers about measures taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal's staff or editorial board receive impartial and unbiased evaluations.

4. Relations with authors

4.1. Editors should base their decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication on factors such as the paper's significance, originality, clarity, validity of the study, and its alignment with the journal's scope.

4.2. Editors should not overturn acceptance decisions unless substantial issues are identified with the submission.

4.3. New editors should refrain from reversing publication decisions made by their predecessors unless significant problems are identified.

4.4. A comprehensive description of the peer review processes should be published, and editors must be prepared to explain any significant deviations from these processes.

4.5. Journals must establish a transparent mechanism that enables authors to appeal against editorial decisions.

4.6. Editors should regularly update and publish clear author guidance detailing the expectations from authors. This guidance should reference or link to the relevant code of ethics.

4.7. Editors should provide authors with clear criteria for authorship or contributorship, aligning with standards in their respective fields.

Best practices for editors would include:

  • Regularly reviewing author instructions and including links to pertinent guidelines.
  • Disclosing any competing interests for all contributors and issuing corrections if competing interests come to light after publication.
  • Ensuring that appropriate reviewers, free from disqualifying competing interests, are selected for submissions.
  • Respecting authors' requests that certain individuals not review their submission, provided such requests are reasonable and feasible.
  • Publishing information on how they handle cases of suspected misconduct.
  • Disclosing submission and acceptance dates for articles.

5. Relations with reviewers

5.1. Editors should provide clear and updated guidance to reviewers about their responsibilities, including the importance of confidentiality when handling submitted material. This guidance should reference or link to the journal's code of ethics.

5.2. Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.

5.3. Editors should establish systems to protect the identities of peer reviewers unless an open review system is utilized, which should be transparently communicated to authors and reviewers.

Best practices for editors would include:

  • Encouraging reviewers to address ethical concerns and potential research and publication misconduct raised by submissions, such as unethical research design, inadequate patient consent, and improper data manipulation and presentation.
  • Encouraging reviewers to assess the originality of submissions and to be vigilant for redundant publication and plagiarism.
  • Providing reviewers with tools to identify related publications, such as links to cited references and bibliographic searches.
  • Sending reviewers' comments to authors in full, unless they contain offensive or libelous content.
  • Recognizing and acknowledging the contributions of reviewers to the journal.
  • Encouraging academic institutions to recognize and value peer review as an integral part of the scholarly process.
  • Monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and taking corrective measures to maintain high standards.
  • Maintaining a comprehensive database of suitable reviewers and updating it based on reviewer performance.
  • Discontinuing the use of reviewers who consistently produce poor quality, discourteous, or late reviews.
  • Ensuring that the reviewer database represents a diverse community and adding new reviewers as needed.
  • Using various sources, not limited to personal contacts, to identify potential new reviewers, such as author suggestions and bibliographic databases.
  • Following the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct.

6. Relations with editorial board members

6.1. Editors should provide comprehensive guidelines to new editorial board members detailing their roles and responsibilities. Additionally, existing board members should be regularly informed about new policies and developments within the journal.

Best practices for editors would include:

  • Implementing policies for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased and fair review.
  • Selecting editorial board members who possess the appropriate qualifications and expertise to actively contribute to the journal's development and effective management.
  • Periodically review the composition of the editorial board to ensure diversity and expertise in relevant areas.
  • Offering clear and explicit guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties. These may include:
    • Acting as advocates for the journal and promoting its visibility.
    • Encouraging high-quality submissions and identifying promising authors and research.
    • Participating in the review process for submissions.
    • Contributing to the creation of editorials, reviews, and commentaries within their specialized field.
    • Attending and actively participating in editorial board meetings.
    • Seeking input from editorial board members periodically (e.g., annually) to gather feedback on journal operations, communicating any policy changes, and addressing future challenges.

7. Relations with the Publisher

7.1. The relationship between editors and the publisher or owner of the journal should be founded on the principle of editorial independence, ensuring that editorial decisions are made without undue influence.

7.2. Editorial decisions about article publication should be determined solely based on the quality and appropriateness of the content for the journal, and should not be influenced by the publisher.

7.3. Editors should have a written agreement or contract that outlines their relationship with the publisher. This contract should clearly establish the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of both parties.

7.4. The terms of the contract between editors and the publisher should align with the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors, which promotes ethical standards and editorial independence.

Best practices for editors would include:

  • Maintaining open and regular communication with the publisher to discuss matters related to the journal's operations, policies, and developments.
  • Ensuring that the publisher respects and upholds the principles of editorial independence and ethical publishing practices.
  • Being proactive in addressing any conflicts or concerns that may arise between editors and the publisher to ensure the continued integrity of the journal's editorial process.

8. Editorial and peer review processes

8.1. Editors should make every effort to ensure that the peer review process conducted at their journal is impartial, unbiased, and conducted in a timely manner.

8.2. Editors should implement measures and systems to safeguard the confidentiality of submitted materials during the peer review process.

Best practices for editors would include:

  • Providing appropriate training and resources to individuals involved in the editorial process, including editors, reviewers, and editorial staff, to ensure they are well informed about current peer review guidelines, practices, and technological advancements.
  • Staying updated about the latest developments in peer review research and technology to continuously improve the journal's peer review practices.
  • Choosing and implementing appropriate peer review methods that align with the specific needs and characteristics of the journal and its research community.
  • Regularly reviewing the journal's peer review procedures to identify areas for improvement and efficiency.
  • Referring complex or challenging cases to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), especially when the issues at hand are not covered by existing COPE flowcharts or when new forms of publication misconduct are suspected.
  • Considering the appointment of an ombudsperson or a designated individual to handle and resolve complaints and disputes that cannot be resolved internally within the editorial team. This individual can provide an objective perspective and ensure fairness in addressing concerns related to the peer review process.

9. Quality assurance

9.1. Editors should implement measures to ensure the high quality of the content they publish, understanding that different journals or sections within journals may have varying aims and standards.

Best practices for editors would include:

  • Establishing effective systems to identify and address instances of falsified data, such as manipulated images or plagiarized text, both through routine processes and in response to suspicions raised.
  • Making decisions regarding the journal's house style based on evidence that supports improved reporting quality. This might involve adopting practices like structured abstracts or following specific reporting guidelines. Decisions should be driven by the goal of enhancing the quality and transparency of published research rather than mere aesthetic preferences or personal opinions.

10. Protecting individual data

10.1. Editors must adhere to the confidentiality laws of their jurisdiction. Regardless of local regulations, they are responsible for safeguarding the confidentiality of individual information acquired during research or professional interactions. Obtaining written informed consent for publication is generally required from individuals who might recognize themselves or be identified by others in published content, such as case reports or photographs. However, in cases where public interest considerations outweigh potential harms, or when it's impossible to obtain consent and a reasonable individual would not object to publication, it might be permissible to publish individual information without explicit consent.

Best practices for editors would include:

  • Clearly outlining their policy regarding the publication of individual data, including identifiable personal details or images, and communicating this policy effectively to authors.
  • Recognizing that consent to participate in research or undergo treatment doesn't automatically imply consent to publish personal details, images, or quotations.

11. Encouraging Ethical Research (e.g. research involving humans or animals)

11.1. Editors should make efforts to ensure that the research they publish aligns with the relevant international standards and guidelines, such as the Declaration of Helsinki for clinical research and the guidelines from organizations like AERA (American Educational Research Association) and BERA (British Educational Research Association) for educational research.

11.2. Editors should verify that all research articles have been approved by an appropriate ethics review body, such as a research ethics committee or institutional review board, where applicable. However, editors must understand that such approval doesn't automatically indicate the research's ethical soundness.

Best practices for editors would include:

  • Being ready to request documentation confirming ethical research approval and to inquire about ethical aspects of the research (such as obtaining participant consent or minimizing animal suffering) if concerns or queries arise.
  • Ensuring that reports of clinical trials reference compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice.
  • Considering the establishment of a journal ethics advisor or panel to offer guidance on specific cases and periodically review journal policies.


  1. Handling Allegations of Misconduct

12.1. Editors have a responsibility to take action if they have reason to suspect research misconduct or if they receive allegations of misconduct, regardless of whether the paper has been published or not.

12.2. Editors must not simply dismiss papers that raise concerns about potential misconduct. They are ethically obligated to thoroughly investigate suspected cases of misconduct.

12.3. Editors should refer to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) flowcharts and guidelines for proper guidance on handling misconduct cases when applicable.

12.4. Editors should initiate the process by seeking a response from the individuals suspected of misconduct. If the response is unsatisfactory, editors should involve the relevant employers, institutions, or appropriate organizations (such as regulatory bodies or national research integrity organizations) to conduct further investigation.

12.5. Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a comprehensive investigation into alleged misconduct takes place. If the investigation process is not properly executed, editors should persistently pursue alternative avenues for resolution. This responsibility is significant and crucial for upholding ethical standards in research and publication.

13. Ensuring the Integrity of the Academic Record

13.1 Errors, inaccuracies, or misleading statements must be promptly corrected and given appropriate prominence.

13.2 Editors should adhere to the COPE guidelines on retractions. Best practices for editors include:

  • Implementing measures to minimize covert redundant publication (e.g., by mandating registration of all clinical trials)
  • Ensuring secure archiving of published material (e.g., through permanent online repositories like PubMed Central)
  • Establishing systems that allow authors to provide open access to original research articles.

14. Intellectual Property

14.1 Editors should be vigilant about intellectual property concerns and collaborate with the publisher to address potential violations of intellectual property laws and conventions. Best practices for editors include:

  • Adopting mechanisms to detect plagiarism (e.g., software tools, searching for similar titles) in submitted materials (either as routine practice or when suspicions arise)
  • Assisting authors whose copyrights have been infringed upon or who have fallen victim to plagiarism
  • Being prepared to cooperate with the publisher to safeguard authors’ rights and pursue offenders (e.g., by requesting retractions or removal of content from websites), irrespective of whether the journal holds copyright.

15. Encouraging Discourse

15.1 Editors should foster and be receptive to well-founded criticisms of works published in their journal.

15.2 Authors of criticized material should be afforded the opportunity to provide a response.

15.3 Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded. Best practices for editors involve:

  • Welcoming research that challenges prior contributions published in the journal

16. Addressing Complaints

16.1 Editors should promptly address complaints and establish a procedure for dissatisfied complainants to escalate their concerns. This procedure should be clearly communicated in the journal, along with guidance on referring unresolved matters to COPE.

16.2 Editors should adhere to the process outlined in the COPE flowchart for handling complaints.

17. Commercial Considerations

17.1 Journals must institute policies and structures to prevent commercial considerations from influencing editorial decisions (e.g., ensuring the autonomy of advertising departments from editorial departments).

17.2 Editors should establish transparent policies regarding advertising's relationship to journal content and procedures for publishing sponsored supplements.

17.3 Reprints should be reproduced as they appear in the journal, unless a correction is necessary, in which case it should be clearly indicated. Best practices for editors comprise:

  • Providing a general overview of the journal's revenue sources (e.g., proportions from display advertising, reprint sales, sponsored supplements, page charges, etc.)
  • Ensuring that the peer review process for sponsored supplements mirrors that of the main journal
  • Making decisions about sponsored supplements solely based on academic merit and reader interest, devoid of commercial considerations.

18. Managing Conflicts of Interest

18.1 Editors should adhere to the ICMJE form and procedure for managing conflicts of interest.

18.2 Journals should define a process for handling submissions from editors, employees, or editorial board members to ensure impartial review.


Authors are strongly advised to review their manuscript's content before submitting it for journal publication. Authors may utilize trustworthy and valid "Plagiarism Checking Software" to ensure the originality of their manuscripts. All submitted papers will undergo plagiarism screening upon receipt and before final publication, utilizing iThenticate and other plagiarism detection software. In case any form of plagiarism is suspected or identified by Reviewers, Editor-in-Chiefs, Readers, or Editorial Staff at any publication stage, the manuscript will be rejected, and all authors, including the corresponding author, will receive notification. Instances of self-plagiarism will also be addressed and managed accordingly.

COPE’s code of conduct and flowcharts will be used if any Plagiarism is detected in a submitted manuscript or if it is found in a published paper.

11. Publishing schedule

The Journal is published on a bimonthly basis.

12. Archiving Policy

The journal is now archived electronically at the local and international repositories as follows:


 13. Revenue Sources
According to the policy of the Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, corresponding authors are requested to pay the article processing and publication charge as mentioned here.

14. Advertising
According to the Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) Journals Publishing House, we don't accept advertisements in any case.

 15. Direct Marketing
Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology don't have any direct marketing activities.

16. The Publisher Principles: Codes of Conduct and Ethical Guidelines

Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology is committed to applying the following codes and principles of conduct of the publisher, Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) Journals Publishing House: