Publication Ethics

A. Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement                               B. Ethical Guidelines for Publication of Organic Chemistry Research


A. Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement 

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement


1. Website
Users can access the journal's website at:

2. Name of Journal & Abbreviation
The journal title is Organic chemistry Research. The journal is abbreviated as Org. Chem. Res. The acronym is OCR.

3. Peer-review Process

Peer Review Policy
According to COPE's Code of Conduct and Best Practices journal is obligated to use a double-blind peer review method.

Peer Review Process
Editorial evaluation and peer review are used to decide whether or not to publish a paper. All papers are initially evaluated internally by an editorial committee made up of two or more editorial board members, mostly based on Editor-in-Chief Selection & Decision. The main goal is to decide whether to quickly reject the work or send it out for external review. In order to prevent delays for authors who might want to seek publication elsewhere, papers whose topics are not related to the journal's objective and scope, or who did not comply with fundamental journal standards and regulations will be rejected at this stage. In order to help the editors, decide whether or not to send a work out for review, occasionally a paper will be returned to the author with suggestions for improvements. Within 1-3 weeks of submission, authors can anticipate a decision from this step of the review process.
Manuscripts going forward to the review process are reviewed by members of an international expert panel. All such papers will undergo a double-blind peer review by two or more reviewers, under the supervision of the journal section editor and also the Editor-in-Chief. We take every reasonable step to ensure the author's identity is concealed during the review process but it is up to authors to ensure that the details of prior publications etc. do not reveal their identity. Authors who reveal their identity in the manuscript will be deemed to have declined anonymity and the review will be single-blind (i.e. authors do not know the reviewers' identities).
We aim to complete the review process within 4-8 weeks of the decision to review although occasionally delays do happen and authors should allow at least 8 weeks from submissions before contacting the journal. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to the final decision regarding acceptance.

Role of Reviewers
Reviewers are the primary members who contribute to the journal's ability to conduct a double-blind peer review procedure. It is required that double-blind referees never reveal their identities.
If a reviewer believes that an article is technically unqualified, that they are unable to complete the timely review, or that the piece has a conflict of interest, they should decline to review it right away.
All submissions will be kept in confidence, and any outside counsel received may be subject to editorial approval.
No reviewer should ever refer an article that has been submitted to them for review to another reviewer for their own benefit; instead, it should be immediately refused.
Reviewers, who form the foundation of the entire quality assurance process, should make sure that the articles published are of a high caliber and are original. If he discovers that the article that was sent to him for review is, to his knowledge, being considered for any other publication, he may let the editor know.
There are no set rules for how to analyze an article; it can be done on a case-by-case basis depending on the value, caliber, and originality of the article that has been submitted.
In general, the following situations could be examined during a review: The article's format and its adherence to the author's guidelines, the Goals of the Article, How to use transitions in your writing, the introduction is followed by a conclusion, some recommendations, and references offered to support the information.
Spelling, punctuation, and grammar issues with plagiarism Article's suitability are required for the reviewer's remarks in the peer review process, which determines whether a submission is accepted or rejected. Our reviewers are urged to carefully read the articles forwarded to them for review and provide honest feedback free from any conflicts of interest or bias. The journal editor-in-chief will ultimately observe and make the final decision.
Instructions for Peer Reviewers
All submissions go through a double-blind review. Peer review, in our opinion, is the cornerstone for preserving the caliber and objectivity of academic and scientific research.
You will provide feedback to the editors (Section Editor and Editor-in-Chief), who will ultimately decide as a reviewer (aided by an editorial committee for all research articles and most analysis articles). We'll let you know what we decide. Even if we decide not to publish an article, we would still like to pass along any helpful criticism that might aid the author in improving it.
Manuscripts that have not been published are all private documents. Please refrain from discussing the article you are invited to review, not even with a coworker. When you are asked to peer review a journal, you should complete the reviewing form. Try to reply to every request for peer review that you get. Please notify the editorial office as soon as possible if you feel the manuscript is outside of your area of expertise or if you are unable to commit the necessary time so that they can appoint a different reviewer. At this point, you may want to suggest a colleague who is well-qualified. Please remember that an author won't receive a prompt response if their manuscript is sitting with reviewers who haven't responded to the peer-review request.
Please take your time reading the Author's Instructions and the Aims and Scope. The manuscript's suitability for the journal it is submitted to should be considered. On the "Journal Information" menu and pages, you may see the goals and domain of the journals.
Every review must be constructive and helpful, and we implore reviewers, to be frank but gracious in their criticism of authors. In the broadest sense possible, the peer reviewers should offer an objective, critical evaluation of the paper. Reviewers are required to advise the Editor-in-Chief on the manuscript selection. Your thorough responses to the journal questions on the reviewing form must be included in your report. If you think the paper needs to be improved before it can be considered acceptable, kindly offer your suggestions. Similarly, you should suggest rejection if you believe a paper is inadequate and has little chance of being improved enough to be published.
You also ought to:
Write intelligibly so that non-native English speakers can understand you. Avoid words that are difficult to understand, even for native speakers. When providing particular remarks, list your points by number and provide the page and line numbers in the manuscript. You should make it clear which sections or features of the work you are only commenting on if you have been asked to do so. Treat the author's creations with the same respect that you would expect for your own. Only the editors have access to the reviewer score sheet, and the authors will receive the comments. Indicate whether the document needs English grammatical, punctuation, or spelling corrections as well (there is a prompt for this).

Confidentiality and Privacy
All manuscripts must be evaluated with confidentiality for the authors in mind. By submitting their articles for review, authors entrust editors with the results of their scientific research and artistic endeavors, upon which their reputation and careers may depend. Disclosure of secret information during a manuscript's review may infringe the rights of the authors. The editor must also respect the confidential rights of the reviewers. If dishonesty or fraud is suspected, confidentiality may need to be broken, but otherwise it must be maintained. Editors are prohibited from disclosing information regarding submitted papers (including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, criticism by reviewers, and ultimate disposition) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This includes requests to use the materials in litigation.
Editors must make it clear to reviewers that submitted papers are protected communications and the authors' private property. Therefore, reviewers and editorial staff members must respect the authors' rights by refraining from publicly discussing the authors' work or appropriating their ideas prior to the publication of the manuscript. Except with the editor's approval, reviewers should not be permitted to make copies of the manuscript for their own files and should be banned from sharing it with others. After submitting evaluations, reviewers should return or destroy copies of submitted articles. Editors should not keep rejected manuscripts in their files. Reviewer comments should not be published or otherwise made public without the reviewer's, author's, and editor's permission.

Guidelines and Flowcharts of COPE
The Journal is committed to adhering to and implementing the rules and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics in its reviewing and publishing procedures and concerns. For additional information, please visit:

Mismatch of Interests in Reviewing Procedure
Although we use double-bind peer review, the research community can be a small one. Due to their familiarity with the author's writing, many reviewers may be acquainted with them. You can give a fair evaluation of an article written by a friend or a rival, but you should disclose any substantial conflicts of interest to the editor and deny the review request if they will result in a strong positive or negative bias. Judge the article rather than passing judgment on others. The author is more likely to appreciate this and produce better work as a result.
Even if they have to find a new reviewer, editors will value candor about any conflicts of interest.  

4. Ownership and Management
Organic Chemistry Research is owned, managed & published by Iranian Chemical Society.

5. Governing Body
The Journal's Governing Body and their affiliations & 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
On the grounds that making research freely available to the public promotes an increased level of intercultural exchange of information, this publication offers immediate open access to all of its material.Every journal article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License, which allows for any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided that the original author(s) and the source are properly credited.

Despite having copyright, authors grant the publisher* exclusive rights to their articles.
Authors are entitled to:
• Share their article in accordance with their "Personal Use Rights"**, provided that it includes the end user license and a DOI link to the version that is currently on record in this journal.
• Maintain intellectual property rights (including research data).
• Appropriate credit and attribution for the published work.
* Included in this is the ability to create and approve commercial use.
** Rights to personal use
The following examples of scholarly, non-commercial uses for authors' articles include:
• Application in a writer's classroom instruction (including distribution of copies, paper or electronic)
• Giving copies to reputable research colleagues for personal use (including via email).
• Inclusion in a dissertation or thesis
• Include in a later collection of the author's works
• Making the Article into a book-length work.
• Creation of other derivative works (but not for Commercial Use)
• Reusing a work's parts or excerpts in other contexts.

8. Authors and Authors Responsibilities
The corresponding author typically ensures that all administrative requirements of the journal, such as ethics committee approval, providing authorship details, gathering conflict of interest statements, and clinical trial registration documentation, are correctly completed. The corresponding author assumes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication processes. The corresponding author must promptly respond to editorial questions throughout the peer review processes and submission. After publication, the corresponding author must assist the journal with any requests.
After the article has been officially accepted, Organic Chemistry Research (OCR) does not permit adding new authors or modifying the first or corresponding authors. A letter declaring the author's desire to be withdrawn from the list of authors, signed by the author and all other authors, should be submitted if any author desires to have their name removed from the byline. Any modification to the byline's name order necessitates a letter from all authors indicating their consent to the change, which must be signed.
The corresponding author takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process and typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest statements, are correctly completed. The corresponding author should respond to editorial queries throughout the submission and peer review process in a timely manner and should cooperate with any requests from the journal after publication. Organic Chemistry Research (OCR) may not allow adding authors or changing the first or the corresponding authors after the final acceptance of the article. If any author wishes to be removed from the byline, he or she should submit a letter signed by the author and all other authors indicating his or her wish to be deleted from the list of authors. Any change in the name order in the byline requires a letter signed by all authors indicating agreement with the same.

Duplicate Publication and Originality
The manuscripts that are submitted to the journal must be original and unpublished elsewhere. While the contribution to the journal is being reviewed, this rule also applies to publications submitted elsewhere. All authors must fix any copyright problems before citing a figure or table from another journal.

9. Author Fees
Article Processing Charge (APC) and any other publication fees in the journal are free for authors because Organic Chemistry Research (OCR) covers the majority of the costs associated with publishing. There are NO APC fees associated with this publication.

10. Publication Ethics

The journal pledges to abide by all publisher rules and conduct guidelines, which are available at: Details of the codes, terms, and regulations governing journal publication ethics are as follows:
organic Chemistry Research as a non-profit, libre open access, peer-reviewed journal owned, managed & published by Iranian Chemical Society is dedicated to applying publication ethics based on COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices. You may find the journal's publication ethics code available here and here.

COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts
Organic Chemistry Research is committed to follow and apply guidelines and flowcharts of Committee on Publication Ethics in its reviewing and publishing process and issues.

COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices
1. Editors
Chief Editors is accountable for everything published in the journal. This means the editors
1.1 strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
1.2 strive to constantly improve their journal;
1.3 have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish;
1.4 champion freedom of expression;
1.5 maintain the integrity of the academic record;
1.6 preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
1.7 always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Best Practices for Editors would include

  • actively seeking the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes
  • encouraging and being aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing their journal’s processes in the light of new findings
  • supporting initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct
  • supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics
  • assessing the effects of their journal policies on author and reviewer behavior and revising policies, as required, to encourage responsible behavior and discourage misconduct
  • ensuring that any press releases issued by their journal reflect the message of the reported article and put it into context.

2. Readers
2.1 Readers should be informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • ensuring that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers including statistical review.
  • ensuring that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are clearly identified
  • adopting processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting including technical editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists
  • considering developing a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of non-research articles
  • adopting authorship or contributor ship systems that promote good practice (i.e. so that listings accurately reflect who did the work) and discourage misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest authors)
  • informing readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staffer editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation

3. Informing readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation

4. Relations with authors
4.1 Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
4.2 Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.

4.3 New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.

4.4 A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.

4.5 Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions.

4.6 Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer to or link to this code.

4.7 Editors should provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor following the standards within the relevant field.
Best practices for editors would include:

  • Reviewing author instructions regularly and providing links to relevant guidelines
  • Publishing relevant competing interests for all contributors and publishing corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication
  • Ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests)
  • Respecting requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are well-reasoned and practicable
  • Publishing details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct
  • Publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles

5. Relations with reviewers
5.1 Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
5.2 Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
5.3 Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects (including animals), inappropriate data manipulation and presentation)
  • encouraging reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism
  • considering providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications (e.g. links to cited references and bibliographic searches)
  • sending reviewers’ comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libelous remarks
  • seeking to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal
  • encouraging academic institutions to recognize peer review activities as part of the scholarly process
  • monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this is of high standard
  • developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating this on the basis of reviewer performance
  • ceasing to use of reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews
  • ensuring that the reviewer database reflects the community for their journal and adding new reviewers as needed
  • using a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (e.g. author suggestions, bibliographic databases)
  • following the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct

6. Relations with editorial board members
6.1 Editors should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • having policies in place for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased review
  • identifying suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal
    • regularly reviewing the composition of the editorial board
  • providing clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties, which might include:
  • acting as ambassadors for the journal
  • supporting and promoting the journal
  • seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions
  • reviewing submissions to the journal
  • accepting commissions to write editorials, reviews and commentaries on papers in their specialist area
  • attending and contributing to editorial board meetings
  • consulting editorial board members periodically (e.g. once a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenge

7. Relations with Publisher
7.1 The relationship of editors to Publisher and the owner is based firmly on the principle of editorial independence.
7.2 Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from Publisher.
7.3 Editors have a written contract(s) setting out their relationship with Publisher.
7.4 The terms of this contract is in line with the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • communicating regularly with Publisher

8. Editorial and peer review processes
8.1 Editors should strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely.
8.2 Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • ensuring that people involved with the editorial process (including themselves) receive adequate training and keep abreast of the latest guidelines, recommendations and evidence about peer review and journal management
  • keeping informed about research into peer review and technological advances
  • adopting peer review methods best suited for their journal and the research community it serves
  • reviewing peer review practices periodically to see if improvement is possible
  • referring troubling cases to COPE, especially when questions arise that are not addressed by the COPE flowcharts, or new types of publication misconduct are suspected
  • considering the appointment of an ombudsperson to adjudicate in complaints that cannot be resolved internally

9. Quality assurance
9.1 Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • having systems in place to detect falsified data (e.g. inappropriately manipulated photographic images or plagiarized text) either for routine use or when suspicions are raised
  • basing decisions about journal house style on relevant evidence of factors that raise the quality of reporting (e.g. adopting structured abstracts, applying guidance) rather than simply on aesthetic grounds or personal preference

10. Protecting individual data
10.1 Editors must obey laws on confidentiality in their own jurisdiction. Regardless of local statutes, however, they should always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions. It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from people who might recognize themselves or be identified by others (e.g. from case reports or photographs). It may be possible to publish individual information without explicit consent if public interest considerations outweigh possible harms, it is impossible to obtain consent and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.

Best practice for editors would include:

  • publishing their policy on publishing individual data (e.g. identifiable personal details or images) and explaining this clearly to authors

Note that consent to take part in research or undergo treatment is not the same as consent to publish personal details, images or quotations.

11. Encouraging ethical research (e.g. research involving humans or animals)
11.1 Editors should endeavor to ensure that research they publish was carried out according to the relevant internationally Declaration of Helsinki for clinical research, and the AERA and BERA guidelines for educational research.
11.2 Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. However, editors should recognize that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • being prepared to request evidence of ethical research approval and to question authors about ethical aspects (such as how research participant consent was obtained or what methods were employed to minimize animal suffering) if concerns are raised or clarifications are needed

  • ensuring that reports of clinical trials cite compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice.

  • appointing a journal ethics advisor or panel to advise on specific cases and review journal policies periodically

12. Dealing with possible misconduct
12.1 Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
12.2 Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
12.3 Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable.
12.4 Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate.
12.5 Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.

13. Insuring the integrity of the academic record
13.1 Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
13.2 Editors should follow the COPE guidelines on retractions.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • taking steps to reduce covert redundant publication (e.g. by requiring all clinical trials to be registered)
  • ensuring that published material is securely archived (e.g. via online permanent repositories, such as PubMed Central)
  • having systems in place to give authors the opportunity to make original research articles freely available

14. Intellectual property
14.1 Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with Publisher to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • adopting systems for detecting plagiarism (e.g. software, searching for similar titles) in submitted items (either routinely or when suspicions are raised)
  • supporting authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism
  • being prepared to work with Publisher to defend authors’ rights and pursue offenders (e.g. by requesting retractions or removal of material from websites) irrespective of whether their journal holds the copyright

15. Encouraging debate
15.1 Editors should encourage and be willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in their journal.
15.2 Authors of criticized material should be given the opportunity to respond.
15.3 Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • being open to research that challenges previous work published in the journal

16. Complaints
16.1 Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE
16.2 Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart on complaints.

17. Commercial considerations
17.1 Journals should have policies and systems in place to ensure that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions (e.g. advertising departments should operate independently from editorial departments).
17.2 Editors should have declared policies on advertising in relation to the content of the journal and on processes for publishing sponsored supplements.
17.3 Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction needs to be included in which case it should be clearly identified.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • publishing a general description of their journal’s income sources (e.g. the proportions received from display advertising, reprint sales, sponsored supplements, page charges, etc.)
  • ensuring that the peer review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal
  • ensuring that items in sponsored supplements are accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and decisions about such supplements are not influenced by commercial considerations

18. Conflicts of interest
18.1 Editors should use COPE form and procedure for managing the conflicts of interest issues.
18.2 Journals should have a declared process for handling submissions from the editors, employees or members of the editorial board to ensure unbiased review.

All authors are strongly recommended to check the content of their manuscripts before its submission to the journal for publication. The Authors may use trustable valid "Plagiarism Checking software" to make sure that their manuscripts are Plagiarism free. Anyway, all submitted papers to the journal will be checked against Plagiarism upon receiving and also before publishing finally using iThenticate & other Plagiarism Detection Software. If the Reviewers, Editor-in-Chiefs, Readers or Editorial Staffs suspect or notice any type of plagiarism at any stage of the publication process, the manuscript will be rejected and all authors including the corresponding author will be notified then. Self-plagiarism is also considered & 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 going to publish in a semi-annually publication.

12. Archiving Policy
The journal is now archiving electronically at the local & international repositories as follows:

13. Revenue Sources
Iranian Chemical Society is supporting most of the publishing costs of  the Organic Chemistry Research. So Article Processing Charge (APC) or any other publication fees in the journal are free for authors. There is NO APC charges for this journal.

14. Advertising
According to Organic Chemistry Research & its owner, Iranian Chemical Society policy, we don't accept advertisement in any case.

15. Direct Marketing
Organic Chemistry Research don't have any direct marketing activities.

16. Publisher Principles: Codes of Conduct and Ethical Guideline
Organic Chemistry Research is committed to apply the codes and principles of conduct of the publisher which is basically derived from "Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing" published & updated 15 September 2022 by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).



B. Ethical Guidelines for Publication of Organic Chemistry Research


Ethical Guidelines for Publication of Organic Chemistry Research


The Iranian Chemical Society (ICS) serves the chemistry profession in Iran and also in the world since 1982. Among of many activities, this society presents the results of scientific research in ICS journals. Every editor, author and reviewer of the journal of this society has a responsibility to obey the Ethical guidelines of this journal, which is Based on ethical guidelines for publication suggested by Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE). These policies will be reviewed periodically particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE.

 Although these ethical guidelines are obvious for scientists, we will outline them in more detail in the following.



A-   Ethical Obligations of Editors of Scientific Journals

1- An editor should give impartial consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication regardless of race, sex, seniority, religion, nationality, or institutional affiliation of author(s).  An editor may take into account relationships of manuscript immediately under consideration to others previously or concurrently offered by the same author(s).

2- An editor should consider the submitted manuscript for publication with reasonable speed.

3- Editor is the only person who has a responsibility to accept or reject a manuscript according to reviewer’s recommendation. The editor must choose appropriate reviewers very close to the manuscript in order to reach the correct judgment. However, the manuscript can be rejected by the editor without external review, if it is not appropriate for the journal. Such rejection may be due to out of the scope of the journal, manuscript prepared very badly, results are not enough to prove the issue in manuscript, unacceptable English, ethical violation by the author, or other reasons.

4- The editor and members of the editor’s staff should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to others than reviewers, except to whom to solicit (the person selected by the editor to judge between reviewer and author).

5- An editor should respect the intellectual independence of authors. The editor must quickly send the manuscript to reviewers.

6- If an editor is the author of submitted a manuscript, editor-in-chief has a responsibility to choose another qualified editor for this manuscript.

7- Any editor must not use any unpublished information, argument or interpretations disclosed in any submitted manuscript in editor’s own research, unless by written permission of the author. If it has happened, the editor should be ethically discontinued the work. This editor has not qualification for editorial work. Editor-in-chief must assign another editor for this manuscript.

8- If some convincing erroneous were found in the published manuscript, the editor should facilitate reporting the error by author or by the editor whom find the error.

9- An author may ask the editor not to send the manuscript to certain reviewers. However, the editor may decide to use these reviewers to get important opinions in the fair consideration of a manuscript.

10- Editors should follow COPE guideline and flowchart in case of any research misconduct including plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification and citation manipulations.


B-   Ethical Obligations of Authors

The ethical guidelines of the authors are as follows:

1- An author should present accurate and complete accounts of the research performed, including the data collected or used, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the research. The research and the reported data should contain sufficient detail and reference to public sources of information for a trained professional to reproduce the experimental observations.

2- An author, therefore, has an obligation to use the journal space wisely and economically because it is a precious resource created at considerable cost.

3- An author is responsible for providing data, methods, and samples of unusual materials unavailable elsewhere. Authors are encouraged to submit their data to a public database, where available.

4- An author is obligated to perform a literature search to find earlier work that is essential for understanding the present investigation, and then cite the original publications. Except in a review, citation of work that will not be referred to in the reported research should be minimized.

5- Authors should identify any unusual hazards inherent in the chemicals, equipment, or procedures used in the investigation. Authors should inform the editor if a manuscript could be considered to report research that can be reasonably expected to provide knowledge, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied by others to pose a threat to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, the environment, or materiel.

6- An author who has done extensive work on a system or group of related systems should organize publication so that each report gives a well-rounded account of a particular aspect of the general study. Fragmentation should be avoided because it consumes journal space and complicates literature searches. It is better to publish the reports on related studies in the same journal, or in a small number of journals.

7- During the submission process, an author, should inform the editor of related manuscripts that the author has under editorial consideration. Moreover, copies of related manuscripts should be supplied to the editor.

8- Submitting the manuscript describing essentially the same research to more than one journal is forbidden unless it is a resubmission of a manuscript rejected for or withdrawn from publication. It is permissible to submit a manuscript for a full paper expanding a previously published brief preliminary account (a “communication” or “letter”) of the same work. However, at the time of submission, the author should inform the editor of the earlier communication, and the preliminary communication should be cited in the manuscript.

9- The source of all information, except that which is common knowledge, should be quoted or offered by the author. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author’s work without explicit permission from the investigator with whom the information originated.

10- The co-authors of a paper are those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the work reported and who share responsibility and accountability for the results. Other contributions should be indicated in a footnote or an “Acknowledgments” section. An administrative relationship to the investigation does not of itself qualify a person for co-authorship. Deceased persons who meet the criterion for inclusion as co-authors should be so included, with a footnote reporting date of death. No fictitious name should be listed as an author or coauthor. The author who submits a manuscript for publication accepts the responsibility of having included as co-authors all persons appropriate and none inappropriate.

11- The corresponding author must indicate any potential and/or relevant competing for financial or other interest (of all authors) that might be affected by publication of the results contained in the authors’ manuscript. The corresponding author must inform the editor at the time of submission either that there is no conflict of interest to declare, or should disclose potential conflicts of interest that will be acknowledged in the published article.

It’s suggested that authors use the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Conflict of Interest form which is available online at and send the completed form during submissions process.

12- Plagiarism is not acceptable in Organic Chemistry Research (OCR). Authors should not engage in plagiarism - verbatim or near-verbatim copying, or very close paraphrasing, of text or results from another’s work. Authors should not engage in self-plagiarism (also known as duplicate publication) - unacceptably close replication of the author’s own previously published text or results without acknowledgment of the source. If one or two identical sentences previously published by an author appear in a subsequent work by the same author, this is unlikely to be regarded as a duplicate publication. Material quoted verbatim from the author’s previously published work must be placed in quotation marks. In contrast, it is unacceptable for an author to include significant verbatim or near-verbatim portions of his/her own work, or to depict his/her previously published results or methodology as new, without acknowledging the source.


C-   Ethical obligations of Reviewers of Manuscripts

1- Since the reviewing is the essential step for publication process, any reviewer must only judge it by scientific merit not by prejudice (race, sex, seniority, religion, institutional affiliation of author(s), or nationality).

2- If the reviewer feels that he (she) is not enough qualified (or has not enough experiences in the field of the manuscript), the manuscript should be promptly returned to the editor by the reviewer.

3- A reviewer of a manuscript should be qualified for complete (supporting data, experimental and theoretical parts) or some parts of the manuscript. For example, if the article is about quantum mechanical calculation on a drug, the editor can assign a reviewer for drug and a reviewer for quantum mechanical calculation.

4- A reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors; otherwise, the editor must omit that reviewer.

5- A reviewer must not sign or write his (her) name in his (her) comments. He (she) must avoid by no means revealing his (her) name to the author(s). 

6- The manuscript is as a confidential document, and a reviewer must not give or show it to others without editor permission.

7- If a reviewer feels this work resembles of his (her) personal current research after reading the abstract, or if he (she) has a personal or professional connection with the author(s), he (she) must return the manuscript promptly to the editor by pressing on decline option.

8- If a reviewer accepts or rejects a manuscript, his (her) comment of judgment about observation, derivation, or argument must be clear and scientifically understandable for editor and author(s) according to enough reasoning and relevant citations. Unsupported comments are not acceptable.

9- A reviewer must be sensitive for any part of the manuscript from other scientists with a relevant citation. Copying from other scientists or substantial similarity between the present work and other works (even written by the present author(s) in other publications) are absolutely forbidden, and the reviewer must report it to editor and author(s).

10- A reviewer should check the references as much as possible to for unnecessary citation or too much self-citation or unnecessary self-citation, and report them to editor and author(s).

11- Reviewers must not disclose or publish any part of the manuscript under their consideration, unless by written permission of authors.      If they do, the editor must discontinue their reviewing for that reviewer(s). If the reviewer action makes a loss for the author, the reviewer can be prosecutable in court by author and journal.

12- Reviewer must inform the editor that the report in the manuscript can provide a product or technologies that may be misapplied by other to make harm for people, animal, plant, material or environment.

13- Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited.

14- Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

15- Reviewers should inform the editor of ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions; Including unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects, inappropriate data manipulation and presentation.