Afarand journals follow the COPE Core Practices and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (issued jointly by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME). Journals in the health sciences also follow the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. This guidance applies to editors, journals, publishers and institutions, and is complemented by national and international codes of conduct. Where a journal's own instructions are more specific than this statement, the journal's instructions apply, provided they do not conflict with COPE guidance.
Editorial decisions. Decisions on submitted manuscripts are based only on a manuscript's importance, originality, clarity, methodological soundness, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope. Studies with negative or null results, replication studies, and studies that challenge previously published work receive equal consideration. Decisions are never influenced by the authors' nationality, gender, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, institutional affiliation or commercial considerations.
Editorial team. The Afarand Scholarly Publishing Editorial Team (ASPET) edits accepted manuscripts before publication for clarity, consistency and compliance with journal structure and reporting standards, and performs pre-publication integrity checks, including similarity screening, image and data checks, and reference verification. ASPET members are the selected editors of all Afarand journals.
Corrections and the scholarly record. If a published article is found to contain errors or major flaws, ASPET takes responsibility for promptly correcting the published record, following the COPE retraction guidelines and the NISO CREC recommended practice. A correction notice may state whether the error originated with the authors or the journal. Every notice (correction, expression of concern, retraction) is publicly linked to the original article, listed in the table of contents, registered through Crossref (e.g., Crossmark), and supplied to indexing databases (e.g., Scopus, PubMed, PMC). Retracted articles remain accessible and are clearly marked as retracted.
Editor performance. Review quality and other performance indicators for editors are assessed periodically to ensure optimal journal performance and to inform reappointment decisions. Individual performance data are kept confidential. These measures are also used to evaluate process changes that might improve journal performance. The handling of manuscripts that may pose a conflict of interest for editors is described in Section 7.4.
An author is a person who has made a significant intellectual contribution to the reported work and accepts responsibility for it. Each author should be able to identify which co-authors are accountable for which parts of the work, and should have confidence in the integrity of their co-authors' contributions. All authors must approve the final manuscript.
Following the ICMJE Recommendations, every author of an Afarand journal must meet all four of the following criteria:
Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data for the work;
Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
Final approval of the version to be published; and
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions about the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Every author must provide a valid ORCID iD (mandatory for the corresponding author), an institutional affiliation (with a ROR identifier where available), and a working institutional email address.
At submission, authors must provide an author contribution statement describing the role of each author in the work.
Only natural persons may be listed as authors. Group or consortium names are handled as described below.
Corresponding author. The corresponding author communicates with the journal during submission, peer review and publication, ensures that the journal's guidelines are followed, and is available to answer editorial questions, including after publication to provide additional details and respond to criticism. Responsibilities may be delegated to a co-author, but the designation of a responsible, reachable corresponding author is essential for the journal and for readers. Although the corresponding author is the primary contact, editors copy all correspondence to all authors. The same applies to teams working across multiple sites.
Non-author contributors. People who meet some, but not all, of the authorship criteria should be acknowledged. General administrative oversight of a research team, funding acquisition alone, writing assistance, technical or language editing, and proofreading do not qualify a person for authorship. These contributors may be thanked individually or as a group at the end of the article. Because acknowledgment can imply endorsement, authors must obtain written consent from the persons named, and journals may request it.
Ghost authors. A ghost author is a person who made a substantial contribution meeting the authorship criteria but is not listed (for example, a professional writer paid by a sponsor, or an unlisted researcher). All who qualify for authorship must be listed, and Afarand journals do not permit ghost authorship. Where writing assistance was used, it must be disclosed, as it may represent a conflict of interest.
Gift (guest) authors. A gift or guest author is listed without having made a significant contribution, for example to win favor, because of seniority (such as a department head), or through reciprocal arrangements between colleagues. Afarand journals do not permit gift authorship.
The use of generative AI tools, including large language models (LLMs), chatbots and image generators, in research and writing is expanding rapidly. In line with COPE, ICMJE and WAME guidance, Afarand journals apply the following rules.
AI tools cannot be listed as authors. They cannot take responsibility for submitted work, cannot declare the presence or absence of conflicts of interest, and cannot manage copyright and licensing agreements.
At submission, authors must disclose whether they used AI-assisted technologies in producing the work (including writing, image or figure creation, and data collection or analysis). The disclosure must name the tool and version, describe how it was used, and appear both in the cover letter and in the manuscript (in the Methods or a dedicated declaration section). Use of basic spelling and grammar checkers does not require disclosure.
Humans remain fully responsible for all submitted content, including any material produced with AI assistance. Authors must carefully verify and edit AI output, which can sound authoritative while being incorrect, incomplete, biased or fabricated (including fabricated references).
AI-generated or AI-altered images and figures are not acceptable unless the use is an explicit part of the research design and is fully described.
Sole authorship is more common in the arts, humanities and social sciences, while multiple authorship is common in disciplines where large, multinational groups collaborate on long-term projects.
Large multi-author groups should decide who will be an author before the work begins and confirm this before submission.
All listed authors must meet all four authorship criteria and submit their own disclosure forms.
Where authorship is attributed to a group or consortium name, the corresponding author must specify the group name at submission and clearly identify the members who qualify as authors and can take credit and responsibility for the work. Contributors who are not authors should be listed in an end-note or acknowledgment section.
Each journal's instructions state any limits on the number of authors, co-first authorship, multiple corresponding authors, and how to present group authorship.
Copyright ownership and signature procedures must be clarified when a group is the author.
Journal instructions state any specific requirements for supplementary material, such as trial registration, ethics committee or institutional review board approval, informed consent for case reports, data availability, and permission to use instruments or other copyrighted material.
The order of authors on the byline is decided by the author group, not by the editors, and conventions vary by discipline. In biomedical research the first author is generally assumed to have done most of the work and the senior investigator is usually last; in some social science fields authors are listed alphabetically, which implies equal contribution.
In Afarand journals, the order of authors is expected to reflect each author's level of contribution, as documented in the author contribution statement.
Before peer review, all authors must sign an agreement on the authorship sequence. The order is not changed after the final editorial decision. Changes before acceptance require a new form signed by all authors.
Authorship disputes should be raised as early as possible, ideally before submission. They fall into two groups: pre-publication and post-publication. When an investigation is needed, editors and institutions keep communication open to the extent permitted by law.
Editors prioritize protecting the integrity of the scholarly record over penalizing authors. Sanctions are the responsibility of the institutions that employ the authors.
The most frequent forms of authorship misconduct that call for institutional investigation are plagiarism, stolen, fabricated or manipulated data, disputes involving several authors, groups, institutions or countries, and undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Plagiarism calls authorship into question because the person who created the new work did not originate the original idea or text. Afarand journals regard plagiarism as unacceptable and take corrective action whenever it is found in a submission or a published article. Similarity-detection software (e.g., Crossref Similarity Check) is used, but editorial judgment is needed to assess the extent of overlap and any mitigating circumstances. Submissions containing plagiarism are rejected, and the editor gives a clear explanation.
Editors decide, case by case, whether to inform the authors' institution. In cases involving stolen, fabricated or falsified data, editors are more likely to involve institutions, because ownership of data and intellectual property is difficult to determine and funding is often awarded to the institution. If several institutions or groups are involved, or an institution cannot investigate outside its own jurisdiction, editors rely on their own judgment.
During a dispute, review or publication may be suspended until the matter is resolved. Editors state which statements or forms are required, set a firm deadline, and authors may then withdraw the submission or fulfil the requirements.
If a dispute arises after publication, the editor updates the scholarly record through a correction or, in serious circumstances, an expression of concern or retraction.
Journal instructions explain author responsibilities, the definition of authorship, ethical expectations for planning, conducting and reporting research, and the need for statements on originality, competing interests and funding. Afarand journals follow COPE guidance in all disputes.
Pre-publication disputes. Editors use the following COPE flowcharts: How to recognise potential authorship problems; Suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship; Addition of extra author before publication; Removal of an author before publication; and Systematic manipulation of the publication process. Review and publication are postponed while disputes over authorship or competing interests remain unresolved. Firm deadlines for responses may encourage prompt replies.
Post-publication disputes. Editors conduct a systematic investigation when authorship concerns arise after publication. Changes to authorship are generally not accepted after publication, but the journal follows COPE guidance in cases of violation: How to recognise potential authorship problems (after publication); Suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship; Request for removal of an author after publication; Request for addition of an extra author after publication; and Systematic manipulation of the publication process.
All journals published by Afarand describe how complaints against the journal, its staff, its editorial board and the publisher are handled, following COPE guidance on complaints and appeals.
Complaints may concern the conduct of the publisher or of a journal (including editors, the editor-in-chief, the editorial board, staff and peer reviewers). Complaints about journal entities are directed to the publisher, who investigates them in accordance with its documented procedures. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and answered within 30 days where possible. Authors may appeal an editorial decision once by writing to the editor-in-chief with a point-by-point justification; appeals are considered by an editor not involved in the original decision. The complainant is informed of the outcome in writing, and those who remain dissatisfied may contact COPE after the journal's process is complete.
Reporting standards. Authors of original research should give an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references for others to replicate the work. Authors should follow the relevant reporting guideline listed by the EQUATOR Network (e.g., CONSORT, PRISMA 2020, STROBE, CARE, ARRIVE 2.0). Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable.
Data availability and retention. Every article must include a data availability statement. Authors should deposit data in a suitable public repository where feasible and cite it, or explain any restrictions. Authors should provide raw data for editorial review on request and retain it for a reasonable period after publication.
Originality and plagiarism. Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original and that the work or words of others are appropriately cited or quoted. Text recycling and undisclosed reuse of the authors' own earlier work are not acceptable.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication. Authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is unacceptable. Posting a preprint is permitted, provided it is declared at submission and cited.
Acknowledgment of sources. Authors must always give proper acknowledgment to the work of others and cite the publications that influenced the reported work.
Authorship of the paper. Authorship is limited to those who meet the criteria in Section 7.1. The corresponding author must ensure that all appropriate co-authors, and no inappropriate ones, are included, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version and agreed to its submission.
Ethics approval, consent and research subjects. Research involving humans must comply with the current version of the Declaration of Helsinki and national regulations, and must report ethics committee approval and informed consent. Clinical trials must be registered in a WHO-recognized registry before enrolment begins. Research involving animals must report ethical approval and follow ARRIVE 2.0. Authors should report sex and gender appropriately (e.g., following the SAGER guidelines).
Hazards. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment with unusual inherent hazards, the authors must identify these in the manuscript.
Research and image integrity. Images and data must not be manipulated beyond minor adjustments applied to the whole image. Journals may request original image files and raw data.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest. All authors must disclose any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be perceived to influence the results or their interpretation, and all sources of financial support for the project (see Section 7.4).
Fundamental errors in published work. When authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, they must promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate to correct or retract the paper.
Manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not share manuscripts or their contents with third parties, and must not upload them to generative AI tools or other services that cannot guarantee confidentiality. Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest, decline reviews they cannot complete fairly and on time, and give constructive, courteous feedback.
Afarand journals have a defined process for handling allegations of misconduct, whether they come to the attention of the journal or the publisher, and whether they concern work before or after publication. Allegations are taken seriously and assessed following COPE flowcharts. The policy also protects whistleblowers, and the identity of those raising concerns in good faith is kept confidential as far as possible.
As the number of journals and published articles grows, so does the potential for violations in the preparation, review and publication of manuscripts. Preventing such violations is one of our key aims. Particular attention is paid to paper mills, fabricated or manipulated images and data, fake or manipulated peer review, citation manipulation and undisclosed AI-generated content. Outcomes may include correction, an expression of concern, retraction, notification of the authors' institution or funder, and restrictions on future submissions.
Afarand journals follow the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing and the following COPE resources (always the current versions, available at publicationethics.org):
Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases
Retraction guidelines
Guidelines for the Board of Directors of Learned Society Journals
Sharing of information among editors-in-chief regarding possible misconduct
How to deal with text recycling
A short guide to ethical editing for new editors
Guidance for editors: research, audit and service evaluations
Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers
How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers
Afarand journals require every participant in the publication process to disclose conflicts of interest, because undisclosed conflicts damage public trust in the scientific process and in published articles. A conflict of interest exists when a secondary interest (financial, professional, personal, political or ideological) could influence professional judgment about a primary interest, such as the validity of research or the fairness of a review. Perceived conflicts matter as much as actual ones. Disclosure does not by itself disqualify anyone; concealment does.
Authors. All authors disclose relationships and activities that could be perceived as influencing the submitted work, during the past 36 months and including those of their institutions where relevant, using the ICMJE Disclosure Form or an equivalent journal form. They name all funders, describe the funders' role (if any) in design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, writing and the decision to publish, and declare any payment for writing assistance. Each article includes a conflict of interest statement and a funding statement. Where there is nothing to disclose, the statement says so.
Peer reviewers. Reviewers disclose, before accepting an invitation, any conflict related to the manuscript, its authors or the topic (for example recent collaboration, shared institution, competition, financial interest, or a close personal relationship), and decline the review when the conflict could affect their judgment.
Editors and editorial board members. Editors do not handle manuscripts when they have a conflict of interest, and they disclose their relevant interests when appointed and annually. Such manuscripts, including submissions from editors, board members and Afarand staff, are handled by an independent editor, and the conflicted person has no access to the review process or the decision.
The journal and publisher. Editorial decisions are independent of owners, sponsors, advertisers, funders and publication fees. Afarand discloses its own relevant interests, including ownership and sources of revenue (see Sections 7.8 and 7.11).
Undisclosed conflicts. When a conflict is discovered after publication, the editor requests a statement from the author, assesses its relevance, and publishes a correction or, in serious cases, an expression of concern or retraction, following COPE guidance.
Afarand journals encourage open, verifiable research and require transparency about the data behind every article.
Data availability statement. Every research article states where the underlying data, code and materials can be found, or why they cannot be shared (for example privacy, consent or legal restrictions). Where possible, data are deposited in a trusted public repository with a persistent identifier, and cited in the reference list following the FAIR principles and the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles.
Data for review and retention. Authors provide raw data to editors and reviewers on request and retain it for at least 5 years after publication, or longer if required by their institution, funder or national regulation.
Reporting standards. Authors follow the reporting guideline appropriate to the study design, as listed by the EQUATOR Network (for example CONSORT, SPIRIT, PRISMA 2020, STROBE, STARD, CARE, ARRIVE 2.0), and submit the completed checklist. Methods must contain enough detail for others to replicate the work.
Research and image integrity. Images, blots, gels and figures must not be altered beyond minor adjustments applied evenly to the whole image. Editors may request original files, and journals may screen for image duplication and manipulation.
Statistics and methods. Statistical methods, software and versions are described, and the journal may request statistical review for studies where this is appropriate.
Negative and replication results. Well-conducted studies reporting null or negative results and replications are considered on the same terms as other studies (see the Framework section).
Afarand journals publish only research that has been conducted ethically, and ask authors to show it.
Research with human participants. Studies must comply with the current Declaration of Helsinki, with national and institutional regulations, and with data protection law. Articles state the name of the approving ethics committee and the approval number, or explain why approval was not required (an exemption must be granted by the committee, not decided by the authors). Informed consent is reported for participants, and for any publication of identifiable details, images or case information.
Clinical trials. Trials are registered in a WHO-recognized registry before the first participant is enrolled, and the registration number appears in the abstract. Trial reports follow CONSORT, and protocols follow SPIRIT.
Research with animals. Studies report ethical approval and follow ARRIVE 2.0 and applicable national and institutional guidelines on animal welfare.
Vulnerable populations and fair participation. Research with children, prisoners, patients unable to consent, or other vulnerable groups, and research conducted in communities or countries other than the authors' own, must show appropriate safeguards, local approval and fair benefit-sharing where relevant.
Sex, gender and diversity. Authors report sex and gender and, where relevant, ethnicity or ancestry appropriately and justify any exclusions (for example by following the SAGER guidelines). Language in articles must be accurate and respectful.
Biosafety and dual use. Authors identify unusual hazards in chemicals, procedures, equipment, pathogens or technologies, and any potential for dual use.
Retrospective approval and non-compliance. Articles without proper ethical approval or consent are not published. When a problem is found after submission or publication, editors follow the COPE flowcharts and may contact the authors' institution or the approving committee.
Afarand journals state clearly who owns the rights to published work and how it may be reused.
Copyright and licensing. The copyright policy and the license applicable to each journal are stated in the author guidelines and on every article. Authors retain copyright, and articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). Authors sign or accept a publishing agreement before publication, and the copyright holder is named on every article.
Third-party material. Authors obtain permission for any copyrighted material (figures, tables, scales, questionnaires and software) and credit the source.
Preprints and earlier versions. Authors may post preprints, provided this is declared at submission, and the preprint is cited and linked. Each journal's policy on accepting preprints for entering the review process depends on the Editorial Board's decision. Posting the accepted manuscript or the published version in a repository follows the journal's stated policy.
Text recycling. Reuse of the authors' own previously published text, data or figures is permitted only with disclosure, citation and, where needed, permission. Journals follow the COPE guidance on text recycling.
Plagiarism and redundant publication. All submissions are screened for similarity, and cases are handled as described in Sections 7.1 and 7.3.
Translations and secondary publication. Republication in another language is acceptable only with permission from the original publisher and clear reference to the first publication.
Misuse of content. Journals investigate reports of unauthorized reuse of their content and may contact the infringing party or platform.
Afarand makes ownership, governance and editorial responsibility clear for every journal.
Ownership and publisher. Afarand publishes journals on behalf of their owners, which are universities or research institutes. Afarand does not own any of the journals it publishes. Each journal's website names its owner (for example, the university that owns it), the publisher, the registered address and a contact. Names of journals and websites are distinct and do not mislead readers about the journal's origin, affiliation or indexing.
Editorial independence. Editors-in-chief have full authority over editorial content and decisions. Owners, Afarand managers and sponsors do not influence individual decisions. The conditions of each editor-in-chief's appointment, including authority, responsibilities, term, and the mechanism for resolving conflict, are stated in writing and agreed by the editor and the owner before the appointment.
Editorial board and advisory body. Each journal publishes the names, affiliations and countries of its editors, editorial board members and advisory body, with ORCID iDs where available. Members are appointed for defined terms on the basis of expertise and are informed of their duties. Names are not listed without the person's consent.
Management team. The Afarand management team and the Afarand Scholarly Publishing Editorial Team (ASPET) are named on the website with their roles and contact details.
Editor training and performance. Editors receive guidance on COPE Core Practices and the ICMJE Recommendations, and their performance is reviewed periodically (see the Framework section).
Journal policies. Each journal states its aims and scope, intended readership, article types, publishing schedule, languages, peer review model, and its indexing status accurately; claims of indexing or an impact factor are made only when verifiable.
Business practices. Afarand does not guarantee acceptance or unrealistically short review times in its communications, and does not use misleading marketing.
Every research article in an Afarand journal is peer reviewed, following the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the Principles of Transparency.
Model. Each journal states its peer review model on its website (for example, single-blind, double-blind or open), the number of reviewers (at least two independent experts for research articles), and which article types are not peer reviewed. Content that is not peer reviewed is clearly labelled.
Initial screening. Editors screen submissions for scope, ethics, reporting standards, plagiarism and image integrity before external review.
Reviewer selection. Reviewers are independent experts who are not part of the journal's editorial staff and have no conflict of interest. Journals do not accept reviewers suggested by authors without verifying their identity, institutional email address and independence. Authors may request the exclusion of specific reviewers, with reasons.
Reviewer duties. Reviewers keep manuscripts confidential, do not pass them to colleagues or generative AI tools, do not use unpublished information for their own advantage, provide objective and constructive reports, and respond within the agreed time.
Editorial decisions. Decisions follow the reviewers' reports and the editor's own assessment and are communicated with reasons. Authors who disagree may appeal (see Section 7.2).
Review time. Average times to first decision and to publication are published on each journal's website and updated periodically.
Recognition and transparency. Reviewers are recognized (for example through ORCID or Web of Science reviewer records) with their consent. Where a journal uses open or transparent peer review, this is stated, and consent is obtained.
Manipulation of peer review. Fake reviewers, reviewer rings and compromised accounts are treated as research misconduct (see Section 7.3).
Afarand journals allow readers to raise concerns about published work and correct the record promptly and transparently.
Post-publication discussion. Each article page gives a clear way to contact the editors (for example, a link or email address) and, where the platform allows, to submit letters to the editor or comments. Criticism of published work is assessed by editors, and the authors are invited to respond. Discussion is moderated for relevance and courtesy.
Types of notices. The journal publishes corrections for errors that affect the interpretation of the work, expressions of concern when serious concerns are under investigation or cannot be completed, and retractions when findings are unreliable, misconduct is proven, or there is serious redundant publication or plagiarism. Minor typographical errors are corrected silently only when they do not affect meaning, and the correction is logged.
Process. Editors assess concerns following the COPE flowcharts and the retraction guidelines, ask authors and, where needed, their institutions to respond, and aim to complete the first assessment within 30 days. Decisions are not delayed because authors object.
Publication of notices. Every notice states the reason, the person or body that requested it (where this is appropriate), and links to the original article. The original is marked with the notice and remains accessible, and the notice is registered with a DOI and sent to indexing services.
Authors' obligations. Authors who discover errors in their own published work notify the journal promptly. Journals do not penalize authors for honest errors that are reported in good faith.
Withdrawal and removal. Articles are removed only in exceptional circumstances (for example, for legal reasons or serious risk to health), and the record then states why.
Afarand journals state openly how they are funded and how readers and authors can use them.
Author fees. Any fee for processing or publishing, including article processing charges (APCs), editing, translation, similarity-report and DOI services, is stated clearly on each journal's website before submission, with the amount, currency and what it covers. Fees are not charged for rejected manuscripts unless stated in advance, and fees or waiver status never influence editorial decisions. Waiver and discount policies are published. Optional Afarand language and editing services are separate from the editorial process, are never a condition of acceptance, and do not affect the decision.
Revenue sources and financial policy. The only permitted sources of revenue are financial support from journal owners and author fees, where a journal charges them; both are disclosed on the Financial Policies and Author Fees pages. Publication decisions are independent of revenue.
Open access. The access policy of each journal is stated clearly on its website: whether content is free to read, whether it is immediately open access, and which license applies (see Section 7.7).
Advertising. Afarand journals do not accept advertising. No sponsor, funder or other third party has any influence on editorial content or decisions.
Direct marketing. Invitations to authors and reviewers are targeted, truthful and respectful, do not promise acceptance or a very short review time and allow recipients to opt out. Misleading claims about indexing, impact factors or reputation are not made.
Publishing schedule. Each journal states its frequency (for example, quarterly) and publishes issues on schedule.
Archiving and preservation. Journals deposit their content with the Islamic World Science Citation Center (ISC) and keep a full digital archive on the journal's and the publisher's websites, so that content remains available if a journal ceases publication. Afarand is working to add an international long-term preservation service. Articles carry DOIs (prefix 10.58209), and journals provide ISSN/eISSN and deposit metadata and full text with indexing services.
Indexing. Journals report their indexing status accurately and give the current status of each index (for example, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, DOAJ) on the website.