Publication Ethics guidelines
Iranian Journal of Weed Science follows the rules and regulations of the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE). The Journal believes that all individuals, involved with the publication process of an article (the author, journal crew, and reviewers) should accept the ethical laws and charters of the journal and act accordingly.
All papers will be controlled by the members of the editorial board for their authenticity without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. Any manuscript received for review must be treated as confidential document.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
The names of everyone who has actively cooperated in designing and preparing the research and collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data should be mentioned as authors.
The names of people who have only played role in financing the research must not be mentioned among the authors and must come in the acknowledgment.
All authors must have read the final edition of the article and should accept its publication in the journal.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.