Policies

The Editor-in-Chief, in conjunction with the Dean of the Association, develops guidelines and continuously monitors the Iranian Journal of Orthodontics. According to the guidelines governing the collaboration between the journal and the editorial team, the structure, responsibilities, and level of involvement of the editorial board members in the publication process are clearly defined. These guidelines expect the Editor-in-Chief to bring together experts from around the world, ensuring that the Journal’s editorial staff includes members with strong international affiliations. Editorial board members are expected to take an active role in the peer-review process by evaluating manuscripts, providing expert recommendations, and contributing to discussions regarding scientific quality and relevance. However, the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of submissions rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

According to the agreement between the Association as the publisher and the Editor-in-Chief, the Journal operates its own exclusive open-access platform, ensuring free access to all published content. In line with these guidelines, all submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous double-blind peer-review process. Editorial board members actively contribute to the evaluation and scientific assessment of submissions; however, the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection remains under the authority of the Editor-in-Chief.

As the publisher, the Association provides financial support for the Journal and ensures that it operates as an open-access publication. In alignment with these responsibilities, the publisher must work to meet the needs of readers and authors, continuously improve the Journal, and maintain systems that safeguard the quality of all published material. The publisher is also expected to uphold freedom of expression, preserve the integrity of the academic record, and ensure that commercial considerations do not compromise intellectual or ethical standards. Additionally, the publisher must remain committed to issuing corrections, clarifications, retractions, or apologies whenever necessary. While the publisher oversees these operational and ethical duties, the Editor-in-Chief retains full responsibility for the academic content and editorial decisions.

Best practices for publishers include actively seeking the opinions of authors, readers, reviewers, and editorial board members on ways to improve the Journal processes, encouraging and being aware of research peer review and publications, reassessing review processes in light of new knowledge, supporting initiatives to reduce misconduct in research and publication, supporting initiatives to educate researchers on publication ethics, evaluating the impact of the Journal’s policies on author and reviewer behavior, and, if necessary, revising policies to encourage responsible behavior and discourage misconduct. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief to accept or reject an article for publication should be based on the importance, originality, and clarity of the article, the validity of the study, and its relevance to the mission of the Journal.

According to the policies set by the publisher, the Journal is expected to clearly describe its peer-review and editorial processes on its website and must be able to justify any significant deviation from these stated procedures. The Journal should also provide a transparent mechanism for authors to appeal editorial decisions. In line with the publisher’s expectations, the Journal must regularly update its author guidelines and ensure that these guidelines reference or link to the publisher’s code of practice. Furthermore, the publisher establishes the overarching criteria for authorship and contributor acknowledgment, and the Journal is responsible for implementing these standards within its editorial and publication workflows.

Best practices for publishers include regularly reviewing the author instructions and providing links to relevant guidelines. The publisher maintains clear policies regarding the management of competing interests, the selection of appropriate reviewers, and the consideration of justified author requests regarding excluded reviewers. Rather than providing fragmented or partial information in this section, these policies are fully detailed in their respective dedicated sections of the Journal’s guidelines. This section therefore serves only to state that such policies exist and are actively implemented by the Journal, with internal links directing readers to the complete and updated versions of these policies.

Open Access Policies and License
Iranian Journal of Orthodontics is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC 4.0). Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and create derivative works from the articles for non-commercial purposes only, provided that the original published article is properly cited. As the Iranian Association of Orthodontists covers all publishing costs of the Iranian Journal of Orthodontics, authors are not required to pay any article processing charges or other publication fees.

Archiving Policy
Backup files for the content of the Journal, including “Publications,” “Submissions,” and “Journal Image and Other Data,” are generated every seventh day. The backup files are stored in DropBox storage.

Data Availability Policy
The Iranian Journal of Orthodontics encourages authors to make data and other materials related to the methodology and findings of articles submitted available to readers at the request of the author or as open-access supplements to the article. Therefore, manuscripts submitted to the Iranian Journal of Orthodontics must be accompanied by a data-sharing statement. A data-sharing statement describing if and how the data will be made available is required as per the ICMJE guidelines for manuscripts reporting clinical trial results. See the ICMJE recommendations for more details.

Ethical Policies
The ethical policy of the Iranian Journal of Orthodontics is based on the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and aims to ensure integrity in the conduct, reporting, and publication of scientific papers in the medical field. Authors are therefore encouraged to carefully review these recommendations before submitting their manuscripts. All readers, authors, reviewers, and editors are required to adhere to this ethical policy when engaging with the journal. In cases of suspected misconduct, fraud, or plagiarism, the publisher follows COPE guidelines and reserves the right to inform the authors or their institutions. For more information on publication ethics, please visit publicationethics.org.

1. Authorship Criteria
   Authorship for this manuscript follows the ICMJE criteria. All authors must meet the following four conditions: substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND final approval of the version to be published; AND agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Further details are available at: ICMJE Authorship Recommendations
2. Authorship and Author’s Responsibility
   During the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process, the corresponding author is responsible for communicating with the Journal and ensuring that all of the Journal’s administrative requirements, such as authorship details, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and conflict of interest statements, are properly completed. Throughout the submission and peer-review process, the corresponding author should promptly respond to editorial queries and cooperate with any requests from the Journal after publication.

After an article has been accepted for publication in the Iranian Journal of Orthodontics, no additional authors or changes to the first or corresponding authors are allowed. If an author wishes to be removed from the byline, he or she must submit a letter signed by the author and all other authors indicating their wish to be removed from the list of authors. Any change in the authors’ order in the byline requires a letter signed by all authors indicating their agreement.

3.Study design and ethical approval
Good research should be well-justified, well-planned, appropriately designed, and ethically approved. Conducting research to a lower standard may constitute misconduct. The authors are responsible for the entire scientific content as well as the accuracy of the bibliographic information. To ensure high-quality and transparent reporting of research, authors are required to follow internationally recognized reporting guidelines appropriate to the design and methodology of their study. During the review process, submitted manuscripts are evaluated based on their adherence to these guidelines.

Commonly used reporting guidelines include, but are not limited to:

• CONSORT for randomized clinical trials
• STROBE for observational studies
• PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
• CARE for case reports
• STARD for diagnostic accuracy studies
• SRQR or COREQ for qualitative research
• TRIPOD for prediction model development and validation
• ARRIVE for animal research
• SPIRIT for clinical trial protocols

Authors should ensure that their manuscripts comply with the relevant guideline(s), and reviewers will assess the completeness and transparency of reporting against these standards. Adoption of these guidelines strengthens methodological clarity, improves reproducibility, and enhances the overall scientific reliability of the submitted work.

4. Data Analysis
   Data should be appropriately analyzed, but inappropriate analysis does not necessarily constitute misconduct. Fabrication and falsification of data do constitute misconduct.
5. Conflicts of Interest
   Conflicts of interest include those which may not be fully apparent and which may influence the judgment of authors, reviewers, and editors. They may be personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial. “Financial” interests may include employment, research funding, stock or share ownership, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies, and company support for staff. All authors, editors, and reviewers are required to fully disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may influence their work or decision-making. Failure to disclose a conflict of interest identified after publication will be handled according to COPE guidelines and procedures, which may include issuing a correction, an expression of concern, or retraction, depending on the nature and impact of the undisclosed conflict.
6. Data Fabrication
   Data fabrication means the researcher did not actually carry out the study but instead made up data or results and recorded or reported the fabricated information. Any instance of data fabrication is considered a severe form of research misconduct. If data fabrication is detected before or after publication, the journal will address the issue in accordance with COPE guidelines, which may involve rejection of the manuscript, retraction of the published article, and notification of relevant institutions.
7. Data Falsification
   Data falsification means the researcher conducted the experiment but manipulated, changed, or omitted data or results from the research findings. All forms of data falsification constitute research misconduct. Cases identified during review or after publication will be handled according to COPE processes, including potential rejection, correction, expression of concern, or retraction, depending on the extent and impact of the falsification.
8. Duplicate Publication
   Duplicate publication occurs when two or more papers with essentially the same hypotheses, data, discussion points, and conclusions are published without full cross-referencing. Authors must avoid submitting or publishing substantially similar work in multiple journals without transparent disclosure. If duplicate publication is discovered—either before or after publication—the journal will follow COPE procedures, which may include rejection, retraction, and notification of authors’ institutions.
9. Citation Manipulation
   Citation manipulation refers to the inclusion of excessive or irrelevant citations in a manuscript that do not contribute to its scholarly content and are added solely to increase citations to a particular author, research group, or journal. This practice misrepresents the importance of the cited work and is considered a form of research misconduct. Any instance of citation manipulation identified before or after publication will be addressed according to COPE guidelines, which may include manuscript rejection, correction, expression of concern, or retraction, depending on the severity and impact of the misconduct.
10. Peer-review
    This journal uses a double-blind peer review system, meaning that the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. To maintain anonymity, authors must prepare their manuscripts in a way that does not reveal their identity, including removing names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and metadata from the file. Each manuscript is typically evaluated by at least three expert reviewers, and no manuscript will be rejected unless negative comments from at least three reviewers are received, or significant ethical or scientific misconduct is detected.

Submitted manuscripts first undergo initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned handling editor to assess scope, originality, ethical compliance, and adherence to journal guidelines, including EQUATOR

 reporting standards when applicable. Manuscripts that pass this stage are assigned to at least three qualified external reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers assess the manuscript independently and confidentially, evaluating scientific rigor, clarity, methodology, ethical compliance, originality, and validity of conclusions. Reviewers are required to use the appropriate EQUATOR reporting guideline(s) corresponding to the type of study.

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection and may suggest ways for authors to improve the manuscript. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, or a senior editor delegated for this purpose, based on reviewer comments and journal policies. Reviewer feedback is transmitted to authors anonymously.

Authors may suggest preferred reviewers or request exclusion of specific reviewers due to potential conflicts of interest. The journal may consider these requests but is not obligated to follow them. Authors must ensure that the submitted work is original, has not been published elsewhere, and is not under review by another journal. All copyright laws, ethical standards, and publication conventions must be followed. Any form of plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, is considered unacceptable and constitutes unethical behavior.

Authors, reviewers, and editors must fully disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest, and reviewers must decline assignments if conflicts exist. Undisclosed conflicts discovered after publication will be handled according to COPE guidelines, which may include corrections, expressions of concern, or retraction.

Peer-review for in-house submission

Editorial board members who submit manuscripts undergo the same double-blind external review as other authors, are excluded from any editorial decisions related to their own submissions, and editorial staff handling the manuscript must access these papers only in their assigned, conflict-free roles.

11. Redundant Publication
    Redundant publication occurs when two or more papers share essentially the same hypothesis, data, discussion points, or conclusions without proper cross-referencing. This practice is considered a form of research misconduct, as it misleads readers and artificially inflates the scholarly record. Any instance of redundant publication identified before or after publication will be handled in accordance with COPE guidelines, which may include manuscript rejection, correction, expression of concern, or retraction, depending on the severity and impact of the duplication.
12. Plagiarism
    Plagiarism ranges from the unreferenced use of others’ published and unpublished ideas, including research grant applications, to submission under “new” authorship of a complete paper, sometimes in a different language. It may occur at any stage of planning, research, writing, or publication and applies to print and electronic versions. All manuscripts submitted to the Journal are checked by iThenticate for possible plagiarism. Authors are expected to check their manuscripts for plagiarism before submission.

If plagiarism is detected during peer review, the submission can be rejected. If plagiarism is detected after publication, the Journal reserves the right, as necessary, to issue a correction or retract the article. The Journal also reserves the right to notify the institutions of the authors about the plagiarism that was found before or after publication.

13. Corrections and Retractions
    To maintain the integrity of academic records, the Journal may publish corrections (errata) or retractions of articles published in the Iranian Journal of Orthodontics. Corrections and errata are issued to rectify errors that do not affect the overall results or conclusions of the article. In such cases, the original article may be updated to reflect minor corrections, such as typographical errors or changes in author affiliations, and a prominent link between the original article and the erratum is provided. This ensures transparency while keeping the article accessible in the public domain.

Changes to published articles that affect the article’s meaning or conclusions, but do not invalidate the article in its entirety, may be corrected at the discretion of the editor(s) by publishing an erratum indexed and linked to the original article. Changes in authorship are exceptional and not routine; such changes require careful consideration and must follow COPE guidance. Minor changes to author affiliation may be included in an erratum or correction, but adding, removing, or reordering authors requires full COPE procedures and, in some cases, may lead to article retraction if disputes cannot be resolved.

Retractions are issued when significant scientific misconduct, ethical violations, or serious errors are identified that compromise the validity of the article. In retraction cases, the original article is typically marked with a “Retracted” watermark, and a retraction notice is published explaining the reason for retraction. Retracted articles are indexed, and the original article is clearly referred to in all databases. In exceptional circumstances, such as severe ethical violations or legal issues, the article may be removed from the journal website and archives.

Authors may also be requested to make minor corrections through a comment or update, provided that these modifications do not affect the results or conclusions of the original work. All corrections, errata, and retractions are linked to the original article to ensure transparency, maintain the integrity of the scholarly record, and provide proper indexing in databases. This policy aligns with current best practices in scholarly publishing and COPE guidelines, ensuring transparency, academic integrity, and protection of the scientific record.

14. Privacy and Confidentiality
    All manuscripts must be reviewed with the utmost regard for the authors’ confidentiality. Authors entrust editors with the results of their scientific work and creative effort when they submit manuscripts for review, and their reputation and career may be at stake. Disclosure of confidential details during the review of an author’s manuscript may be a violation of their rights. Reviewers have the right to confidentiality, which the editor must respect. If there is a suspicion of dishonesty or fraud, confidentiality may have to be breached, but it must be honored otherwise. Besides the authors and reviewers, editors are prohibited from disclosing information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, reviewer criticism, or ultimate fate). Requests to use the materials in legal proceedings are included in this category.

Editors must clarify to reviewers that manuscripts sent for review are privileged communications and the authors’ private property. As a result, reviewers and editorial staff must respect the authors’ rights by refraining from publicly discussing or appropriating the authors’ work before the manuscript is published. Reviewers should not be allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their files, and they should not be allowed to share it with others except if the editor permits them. After submitting reviews, reviewers should return or destroy copies of the manuscripts. Editors should not keep copies of manuscripts that have been rejected. Without the permission of the reviewer, author, and editor, reviewer comments should not be published or otherwise made public.

15. Human and Animal Studies
    All manuscripts reporting the results of experimental investigations involving human participants must include a clear and explicit statement confirming that informed consent was obtained from all participants or their legally authorized representatives. For studies involving vulnerable populations—including children, individuals with cognitive or mental disabilities, prisoners, or any other groups requiring special protection—authors must provide a detailed description of the procedures implemented to safeguard the rights, welfare, and voluntary participation of these individuals.

All human studies must be conducted in full accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments. Authors are required to state that the study protocol received prior approval from an appropriate institutional ethics committee or review board, including the full name of the committee and the approval number or code.

Manuscripts reporting research involving animals must include a statement confirming approval from the institutional or national animal care and use ethics committee. Such studies must comply with internationally recognized standards for the ethical treatment of laboratory animals, including the ARRIVE guidelines and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, or other applicable national or international guidelines. Authors should also describe the measures taken to minimize pain, distress, and the number of animals used.

Manuscripts that do not comply with the “Instructions to Authors,” including the ethical requirements described above, will be returned to the authors for necessary technical corrections prior to editorial or peer review. In accordance with the journal’s submission policies, manuscripts must be submitted as two separate files.

16. Authors are required to disclose any use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the preparation of this manuscript. Any AI-generated content or assistance must be clearly identified in accordance with the journal’s authorship and transparency guidelines. Also, reviewers are not allowed to use generative AI tools to perform or assist in peer review, as these tools may compromise confidentiality, accuracy, and data protection. However, reviewers may use AI for grammar checking or reference formatting, provided that confidential content is not uploaded to external servers and no analysis, interpretation, or judgment is delegated to AI. 
17. Process for Identification of and Dealing with Allegations of Research Misconduct
    The Editor-in-Chief takes reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification or fabrication, among others.
18. Advertising Policy
    The Iranian Journal of Orthodontics does not accept advertising or direct marketing.