About the Journal

Complaints Policy

This procedure applies to complaints about the policies, procedures, or actions of the jiarll’s editorial staff. We welcome complaints as they provide an opportunity and a spur for improvement, and we aim to respond quickly, courteously, and constructively.  Please write your complaint with journal title, vol. no., issue no., paper ID, paper title, page no. 

Our definition of a complaint is as follows:

• The complainant defines his or her expression of unhappiness as a complaint.
• We infer that the complainant is not simply disagreeing with a decision we have made or something we have published (which happens every day), but thinks that there has been a failure of process-for example, a long delay or a rude response-or a severe misjudgment.
• The complaint must be about something that is within the responsibility of the Journal of iarll-content or process.

 
Journal of iarll is aware of the complaints stated below:

1. Authorship complaints;
2. Plagiarism complaints;
3. Multiple, duplicate, concurrent publication/Simultaneous submission;
4. Research results misappropriation;
5. Allegations of research errors and fraud;
6. Research standards violations;
7. Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
8. Reviewer bias or competitive harmful acts by reviewers.

 
Policy for Handling Complaints 

If the Journal receives a complaint that any contribution to the Journal infringes intellectual property rights or contains material inaccuracies, libelous materials or otherwise unlawful materials, the Journal will investigate the complaint. Investigation may include a request that the parties involved substantiate their claims. The Journal will make a good faith determination whether to remove the allegedly wrongful material. A decision not to remove material should represent the Journal's belief that the complaint is without sufficient foundation, or if well‐founded, that a legal defense or exemption may apply, such as truthfulness of a statement in the case of libel. Journal should document its investigation and decision. We strive to ensure that  jiarll is of the highest quality and is free from errors. However, we accept that occasionally mistakes might happen.

Editorial Complaints Policy

The Managing Editor and staff of jiarll will make every endeavor to put matters right as soon as possible in the most appropriate way, offering right of reply where necessary. As far as possible, we will investigate complaints in a blame-free manner, looking to see how systems can be improved to prevent mistakes occurring.

Guiding Principles

Our general approach to complaints is that they are a rare, but inevitable part of a process that involves putting together complex material at great speed. We accept that we make mistakes and try to treat all complaints with urgency even small ones. We believe that timely solutions can prevent problems escalating. All substantial errors and complaints are referred to senior executives within the editorial staff as a matter of course.

The procedure outlined below aims to be fair to those making complaints and those complained about. All complaints will be acknowledged (within 6 working days if by email). If possible a definitive response will be made within two weeks. If this is not possible an interim response will be given within two months. Interim responses will be provided until the complaint is finally resolved. If the complainant remains unhappy, complaints should be escalated to the editor, whose decision is final.

How to Make a Complaint

Complaints about editorial content should be made as soon as possible after publication, preferably in writing by email to: journaliarll@gmail.com.

((Although we are not yet a member of COPE but in publication ethics we respect and follow COPE rules.))

publication ethics

• ·   Editorial Responsibilities
  
  - Editors (Associate Editors or Editor in-Chief) have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
  - Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
  - Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  - Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  - Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
  - Editors should have a clear picture of researches funding sources.
  - Editors should base their decisions solely on the papers importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to publications scope.
  - Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
  - Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers (in half-blind peer review journals).
  - Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to international accepted ethical guidelines.
  - Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
  - Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
  - Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
  - Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.
  - Editors must not change their decision after submitting a decision (especially after rejection or acceptance) unless they have a serious reason.
  
  ·  Publishing Ethics Issues
  
  - All editorial members, reviewers, and authors must confirm and obey rules defined by COPE.
  - Corresponding author is the main owner of the article, so she/he can withdraw the article when it is incomplete (before entering the review process or when a revision is asked for).
  - Authors cannot make major changes in the article after acceptance without a serious reason.
  - All editorial members and authors must will to publish any kind of corrections honestly and completely.
  - Any notes of plagiarism, fraudulent data, or any other kinds of fraud must be reported completely to COPE.

·  Publication and Authorship

- All submitted papers are subject to strict peer review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper. Reviewers are being selected by Associate Editors and Editor in-Chief. Author also can propose reviewers for some journals and article types.
- The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, originality, readability, statistical validity, and language.
- The possible decisions include acceptance, minor revisions, major revision, or rejection.
- If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
- Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
- The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
- No research can be included in more than one publication, whether within the same journal or in another journal by the same language.

·  Authors Responsibilities

- Authors must certify that their manuscript is their original work or translation.
- Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere, or even submitted and been in reviewed in another journal.
- Authors must participate in the peer review process and follow the comments.
- Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
- All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research. Level of their contribution also must be defined in the “Authors Contributions” section of the article.
- Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
- Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
- Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
- Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
- Authors must not use irrelevant sources that may help other researches/journals.
- Authors cannot withdraw their articles within the review process or after submission, or they must pay the penalty defined by the publisher.

·  Peer Review/Responsibility for the Reviewers

- Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
- Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.
- Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments in 500 to 1000 words or filling the review form.
- Reviewers may identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
- Reviewers should also call to the Editor-in-Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

GUIDELINES FOR WRITING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A paragraph of acknowledgments has to be written before the conclusion. However, it will mention if you got any grant or financial support from your universities, institutions, organizations, or companies for your article in the footnote of the first page.

Acknowledgments enable you to thank all those who have helped in carrying out the research. Careful thought needs to be given concerning those whose help should be acknowledged and in what order. The general advice is to express your appreciation concisely and to avoid strong emotive language.

Note that personal pronouns such as 'I, my, me …' are nearly always used in the acknowledgments while in the rest of the article, such personal pronouns are generally avoided.

Sponsor of the journal

This journal belong to Iranian Association of Russian Language and Literature.