COPE Publication Ethics Guidelines for Editors of the Journal of Islamic Art Studies
All editors of the Journal of Islamic Art Studies commit to adhering to the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Editors undertake the following responsibilities:
Editorial Standards
Editors shall maintain the highest standards defined by COPE, ensuring authors and reviewers comply accordingly. Any complaints against those failing to follow these standards will be addressed in accordance with COPE procedures. Editors provide clear guidance on ethical considerations to authors, reviewers, and editorial board members.
Independence
Editors must maintain independence and freedom in their work, ensuring that authors have the liberty to write freely. Editors are responsible for accepting or rejecting manuscripts, typically based on reviewer recommendations. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable by the editors may be rejected without peer review.
Impartiality
Editors must maintain confidentiality and act impartially. They are responsible for evaluating manuscripts solely based on scientific merit, without personal or ideological bias.
Conflict of Interest
Editors must avoid any action that could reasonably increase a conflict of interest. For example, an editor should not handle a manuscript in which they have a direct or potential conflict. The responsibility for the preparation, writing, and editing of any manuscript by the editor must be delegated to a qualified individual such as a former editor or another editorial board member. Written contributions from authors or editors that could bias the review process are not acceptable. Editors should avoid reviewing manuscripts where conflicts exist due to competitive, collaborative, financial, or institutional relationships. Examples include:
· Author and editor being employed at the same institution.
· Editor serving as a thesis supervisor for the author or vice versa.
· Editor and author collaborating on another manuscript currently or within the past two years.
Confidentiality
Editors and editorial boards may not disclose information about manuscripts except to authors and reviewers. Formal procedures must be established to maintain confidentiality during peer review. Editors are expected to ensure double-blind review, protecting the identities of both authors and reviewers. Unmasking reviewer identities occurs only if reviewers consent. Editors must also prevent the unauthorized use of unpublished manuscript content for personal research or benefit.
Quality of Review
Typically, two reviewers are invited to evaluate each manuscript. Editors must ensure that all manuscripts receive high-quality assessment. Rarely, an editor may pre-review a manuscript to remove identifying information or if the manuscript is inappropriate. Reviewer performance and evaluation quality are periodically assessed by the editor to ensure optimal journal operation. Confidential individual data must be securely maintained.
Timely Review
To guarantee prompt evaluation and responses to authors’ inquiries (within one week of submission), editors must conduct initial assessments and select reviewers efficiently.
Quality of Decision-Making
Editors are responsible for clearly explaining editorial decisions to authors, integrating reviewer feedback with additional recommendations. Decisions should never be communicated without sufficient explanation.
Accuracy and Correctness
If editors receive compelling evidence from a reviewer regarding a rejected manuscript, authors must be informed. Similarly, if concerns arise post-publication, editors must issue corrections or retractions as necessary.
Authority and Responsibility
The editor-in-chief holds ultimate responsibility for the journal, respecting its structure (readers, authors, reviewers, editors, and staff) and ensuring the integrity and continuous improvement of the review process. Editorial board members are formally appointed, their responsibilities defined, and their performance regularly assessed.
Performance and Evaluation
Editors should establish performance indicators, including annual audits of acceptance rates, publication intervals, external reviews, and other statistical metrics to improve journal quality. Best practices include:
· Actively seeking feedback from authors, readers, reviewers, and board members.
· Encouraging research on editorial and publication practices and updating procedures accordingly.
· Ensuring clarity, completeness, and technical correctness in published research.
· Promoting transparency and maximum disclosure of non-original manuscripts.
· Establishing authorship systems that recognize contributions accurately and prevent unethical practices.
· Informing readers that manuscripts by board members or staff are objectively reviewed.
Relations with Authors
· Editors’ decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts for publication must be based on the significance, originality, clarity, and scholarly merit of the work, as well as its relevance to the journal’s scope.
· Editors should not alter their decisions regarding manuscript acceptance unless substantial issues concerning the submission are identified.
· New editors should not override decisions made by a previous editor concerning submitted manuscripts, except in cases where serious concerns are identified.
· A detailed description of the peer review process should be published, and editors must be prepared to justify any significant deviations from the described procedures.
· Journals should have a clearly communicated mechanism for authors to appeal editorial decisions.
· Editors should provide authors with guidance regarding all expectations for submissions. This guidance should be updated regularly and linked to the relevant references or resources.
· Editors should offer guidance on authorship criteria and/or contributors who should be listed in accordance with disciplinary standards.
· Author guidelines should be regularly reviewed and updated, with relevant links provided.
· Relevant competing interests of all contributors should be disclosed, and corrections published if competing interests are identified post-publication. Editors must ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected—individuals capable of evaluating the research objectively and without conflicts of interest. Authors’ reasonable and substantiated requests for exclusion of specific reviewers should be respected. Details of how suspected publication misconduct is handled should be disclosed. Submission and acceptance dates should be published.
· Editors should provide reviewers with guidance regarding all expected responsibilities, including the need to handle submissions confidentially. This guidance should be updated regularly.
· Reviewers should be required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest prior to agreeing to review a submission.
· Editors must implement systems to ensure the protection of reviewer identities unless an open review process, previously communicated to both authors and reviewers, is in place.
Best Practices for Editors
· Encourage reviewers to comment on ethical issues and potential research or publication misconduct arising from submitted manuscripts, such as unethical research design, insufficient reporting of research integrity, or improper data presentation.
· Encourage reviewers to assess the originality of submitted work and remain vigilant against duplicate publication and plagiarism.
· Provide tools or mechanisms to identify related publications (e.g., links to cited references and bibliographic searches).
· Share reviewers’ comments with authors in full, except when they contain offensive or defamatory content.
· Acknowledge and appreciate the contributions of reviewers to the journal, and encourage academic institutions to recognize peer review activities as part of the scholarly process.
· Monitor reviewer performance and take measures to ensure it meets high standards.
· Develop and maintain a database of qualified reviewers and update it based on their performance.
· Discontinue the use of reviewers who consistently provide discourteous, low-quality, or late reviews.
· Ensure that the reviewer database represents a comprehensive community and add new reviewers as necessary. Utilize a wide range of sources (not solely personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers, such as author recommendations and bibliographic databases.
· Follow the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct.
Editorial Board Relations
Editors should provide clear guidelines to new editorial board members and keep current members informed about new policies and developments.Best practices for editors in relation to the editorial board include, Establishing policies for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure impartial and unbiased review. Identifying suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the journal’s development and effective management. Periodically reviewing the composition of the editorial board and providing clear guidance on their expected responsibilities, which include:
· Supporting and promoting the journal.
· Identifying high-quality authors and the best scholarly works (e.g., from conference abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions.
· Reviewing manuscripts submitted to the journal.
· Accepting invitations to write editorials, reviews, or commentaries within their areas of expertise.
· Participating regularly in editorial board meetings.
· Engaging in periodic consultations with editorial board members (e.g., once a year) to evaluate their perspectives on the journal’s performance, inform them of any policy changes, and identify future challenges.
Editorial and Peer-Review Process
Editors must make every effort to ensure that the peer-review process within their journal is fair, unbiased, and timely. They should establish mechanisms to guarantee that all submitted materials remain confidential throughout the review process.
Best practices for editors in managing peer review include:
Ensuring that all individuals involved in editorial decision-making (including editors themselves) receive appropriate training and remain informed about the latest guidelines, recommendations, and evidence regarding peer review and journal management. Staying updated on research concerning peer review and developments in relevant technologies. Adopting peer-review models best suited to the journal’s aims and the scholarly community it serves. Periodically evaluating peer-review practices to identify areas for improvement. Referring problematic cases to COPE, especially when issues arise that are not addressed in COPE flowcharts or when new forms of publication misconduct are suspected. Considering the appointment of an independent ombudsperson for evaluating complaints that cannot be resolved internally.
Quality Assurance
Editors must take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, acknowledging that journals and sections within them may have different purposes and standards.
Best practices include:
Implementing mechanisms for detecting fabricated data (e.g., manipulated images, plagiarized text), both routinely and when suspicions arise.
Making decisions about journal policies based on evidence related to factors that improve reporting quality (e.g., structured abstracts, use of reporting guidelines), rather than aesthetic considerations or personal preferences.
Protection of Individual Data
Editors must comply with confidentiality and data-protection laws applicable in their context. Regardless of legal requirements, they are responsible for safeguarding the privacy of individuals whose information is obtained through research or professional interaction. Written informed consent is almost always required for publishing personal or identifiable data (e.g., case reports or photographs). Exceptionally, publication may proceed without explicit consent if overriding public-interest considerations exist, consent cannot realistically be obtained, and a reasonable person would be unlikely to object.
Best practices include:
· Publishing clear policies on personal data disclosure and explaining them to authors.
· Recognizing that consent to participate in research or receive treatment is not the same as consent to publish personal information, images, or quotations.
· Encouraging ethically responsible research.
· Ensuring that research published in the journal adheres to national and international ethical standards recognized by relevant authorities.
· Confirming that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g., research ethics committee or institutional review board), while acknowledging that such approval does not automatically guarantee ethical conduct.
Additional best practices:
· Being prepared to request evidence of ethical approval and to question authors about ethical aspects of their research when concerns arise.
· Appointing an ethics adviser or panel to consult on specific cases and to periodically review journal policies.
Handling Potential Misconduct
Editors are obligated to act when misconduct is suspected or alleged, whether the article is published or unpublished.
Editors must not simply reject papers that raise concerns about potential misconduct; they are ethically required to investigate.
Editors should follow COPE flowcharts as appropriate.
Initial inquiries should be directed toward the individuals suspected of misconduct. If their response is unsatisfactory, editors should request an investigation by the authors’ employer, institution, or an appropriate regulatory or research integrity body.
Editors must make every reasonable effort to ensure that proper investigations are conducted. If such investigations do not occur, editors must continue to pursue resolution through other reasonable means, even when the process is difficult.
Ensuring the Integrity of the Scholarly Record
· Errors, inaccuracies, or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and proportionately.
· Editors must follow COPE guidelines on retractions.
Best practices include:
· Taking measures to reduce covert duplicate publication.
· Ensuring that published material is securely archived.
· Providing mechanisms that allow authors to make their original research articles freely accessible.
Intellectual Property
Editors should remain alert to intellectual property issues and cooperate with relevant institutions to address violations of intellectual property laws and conventions.
Best practices include:
Using tools to detect plagiarism (e.g., software, searches for similar titles) both routinely and when concerns arise.
Supporting authors whose copyright has been infringed or who have been victims of plagiarism.
Being prepared to collaborate with institutions to protect authors’ rights and pursue offenders (e.g., requesting retractions or removal of infringing content), regardless of whether the journal holds copyright.
Encouraging Scholarly Debate
· Editors should encourage and consider well-founded critiques of published work.
· Authors of critical commentary must be given an opportunity to respond.
· Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.
· Best practices include:
· Remaining receptive to research that challenges previously published work in the journal.
Complaints
Editors must respond promptly to complaints and ensure that mechanisms exist for complainants to pursue issues further if unresolved.
These mechanisms must be clearly described in the journal and include information on how to escalate unresolved concerns to COPE.
Editors should follow the COPE flowchart for handling complaints.
Commercial Considerations
Journals must have policies and mechanisms to ensure that commercial considerations do not influence editorial decisions (e.g., advertising must remain separate from editorial processes). Editors must disclose advertising policies and processes for publishing sponsored supplements. Reprints must match the published version unless corrections are required, in which case they must be clearly indicated.
Best practices include:
· Publishing a summary of the journal’s revenue sources (e.g., advertising, reprint sales, sponsored supplements, page charges).
· Ensuring that peer review for sponsored supplements mirrors that used for the main journal.
· Ensuring that content in sponsored supplements is accepted solely on scholarly merit and reader interest, without commercial influence.
Appeals and Further Complaints
Editors must follow the procedures set out in the COPE flowchart for appeals and complaints.
They must respond promptly and ensure that mechanisms exist for dissatisfied complainants to escalate their concerns.