Ethical Considerations

1. Website
2. Name of Journal & Abbreviation
3. Peer-review Process
4. Ownership and Management
5. Governing Body
6. Editorial Board
7. Copyright and Licensing
8. Authors and Authors Responsibilities
9. Author Fees
10. Publication Ethics
11. Publishing Schedule
12. Archiving Policy
13. Revenue Sources
14. Advertising
15. Direct Marketing
16. Publisher Principles: Codes of Conduct and Ethical Guidelines

 

---

1. Website
The journal’s Web site is available at: https://htainaction.tums.ac.ir. All required ethical and professional standards are available at the journal website.

2. Name of Journal & Abbreviation
The journal title is Health Technology Assessment in Action. The journal abbreviation is Health Technol Assess Action.

3. Peer-review process

Peer Review Policy

Journal are committed to apply double-blind peer review process, based on the COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices and ICMJE's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.

Peer Review Process

The decision to publish a paper is based on an editorial assessment and peer review. Initially all papers are assessed internally by an editorial committee consisting of 2 or more members of the editorial board primarily based on Editor-in-Chief Selection & decision. The prime purpose is to decide about fast rejection or the decision to send the manuscript to external review. Papers which their topics are not relevant to the journal aim & scope or they did not meet basic journal standards and requirements will be rejected at this stage to avoid delays to authors who may wish to seek publication elsewhere. Occasionally a paper will be returned to the author with requests for revisions in order to assist the editors in deciding whether or not send it out for review. Authors can expect a decision from this stage of the review process within 1–2 weeks of submission.
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 supervision of the journal section editor also the Editor-in-Chief. We take every reasonable step to ensure author identity is concealed during the review process but it is up to authors to ensure that their 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 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.

Reviewers Role

Reviewers are the main members contributing for the benefit of the journal being a double-blind peer review process possible. Double-blind referees are insisted not to disclose their identity in any form.
A reviewer should immediately decline to review an article submitted if he/she feels that the article is technically unqualified or if the timely review cannot be done by him/her or if the article has a conflict of interest.
All submissions will be treated as confidential, editorial approval might be given for any outside person’s advice received.
No reviewer should pass on the article submitted to him/her for review to another reviewer in his own concern, it should be declined immediately.
Reviewers being the base of the whole quality process should ensure that the articles published should be of high quality and original work. He may inform the editor if he finds the article submitted to him for review is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge.
There are no hard and fast rules to analysis an article, this can be done on case-to-case basis considering the worthiness, quality, and originality of the article submitted.
In general, cases the following may be checked in a review Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to author guidelines Purpose and Objective of the article Method of using transitions in the article Introduction given and the conclusion/ suggestions provided References provided to substantiate the content
Grammar, punctuation and spelling Plagiarism issues Suitability of the article to the need A reviewer’s comments decide the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript as a major element in a peer review process. All our reviewers are requested to go through the articles submitted to them for review in details and give the review comments without any bias, conflict of interests which finally will be observed & decided by journal Editor-in-Chief.

Guidance for Peer Reviewers

All manuscripts are double-blind reviewed. We believe that peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research.
As a reviewer you will be advising the editors (Section Editor and Editor in Chief), who make the final decision (aided by an editorial committee for all research articles and most analysis articles). We will let you know our decision. Even if we do not accept an article we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it.
All unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents. If we invite you to review an article, please do not discuss it even with a colleague. When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should fill the journal’s reviewing form. You should try to respond to every peer review invitation you receive. If you feel the paper is outside your area of expertise or you are unable to devote the necessary time, please let the editorial office know as soon as possible so that they can invite an alternative reviewer – it as at this stage you may like to nominate an appropriately qualified colleague. And please remember, if an author's manuscript is sitting with reviewers who have not responded to the peer-review request, the author will not get a timely decision.
Please read the Aims and Scope and the Author Instruction with care. Consideration should be given to whether the paper is suitable for the journal it is submitted to. The journals' aims and scope is available on “Journal Information” menu and pages.
The essential feature of any review is that it is helpful and constructive and we urge reviewers to be robust but polite when making comments to authors. The Peer reviewers should provide an objective critical evaluation of the paper in the broadest terms practicable. Reviewers need to make a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief on deciding the manuscript. Your report must contain your detailed answers on the journal questions in the reviewing form. If you believe the paper needs revisions to be made before it is acceptable, please make suggestions on how to improve the paper. Likewise, if you feel that a paper is not good enough and has no real prospects of being improved sufficiently to be published you should recommend rejection.
You should also:
Write clearly and so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are Treat the author’s work the way you would like your own to be treated Reviewer Score Sheet is seen by the editors only and the comments will be shared with the authors. You should also indicate if the manuscript requires its English grammar, punctuation or spelling to be corrected (there is a prompt for this).

Privacy and Confidentiality

(Prepared Based on ICMJE's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals)
All manuscripts must be reviewed with due respect for authors’ confidentiality. In submitting their manuscripts for review, authors entrust editors with the results of their scientific work and creative effort, on which their reputation and career may depend. Authors’ rights may be violated by disclosure of the confidential details during review of their manuscript. Reviewers also have rights to confidentiality, which must be respected by the editor. Confidentiality may have to be breached if dishonesty or fraud is alleged but otherwise must be honored. Editors must not disclose information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, criticism by reviewers, or ultimate fate) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This includes requests to use the materials for legal proceedings.
Editors must make clear to their reviewers that manuscripts sent for review are privileged communications and are the private property of the authors. Therefore, reviewers and members of the editorial staff must respect the authors’ rights by not publicly discussing the authors’ work or appropriating their ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers must not be allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their files and must be prohibited from sharing it with others, except with the editor’s permission. Reviewers should return or destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting reviews. Editors should not keep copies of rejected manuscripts. Reviewer comments should not be published or otherwise publicized without permission of the reviewer, author, and editor.

COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts

The Journal are committed to follow and apply guidelines and flowcharts of Committee on Publication Ethics in its reviewing and publishing process and issues. For more information, see: https://publicationethics.org

Conflict of Interest in Reviewing Process

Although we are applying double bind peer review, research sphere can be a small world. It means many reviewers may know the author out of familiarity with their work. You can certainly give a fair assessment of an article that is written by a friend or competitor, but:
If there’s a significant conflict of interest, you should reveal this to the editor if the conflict of interest causes a large positive or negative bias, then it is better to decline the review request Avoid personal judgment and criticism at all times – judge the article. This is more likely to be well received by the author and lead to better work by them.
Every editor will appreciate honesty about conflicts of interest, even if they then have to look for a replacement reviewer.

4. Ownership and Management

Health Technology Assessment in Action is owned & published by Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) Journals Publishing House.

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

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
All journal papers are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source.

Authors have copyright but license exclusive rights in their article to the publisher*.
Authors have the right to:

• Share their article according to the "Personal Use rights"** so long as it contains the end user license and the DOI link to the version of record in this journal.
• Retain intellectual property rights (including research data).
• Proper attribution and credit for the published work.

* This includes the right to make and authorize commercial use.
** Personal use rights

Authors can use their articles, in full or in part, for scholarly, non-commercial purposes such as:

• Use by an author in the author’s classroom teaching (including distribution of copies, paper or electronic)
• Distribution of copies (including through e-mail) to known research colleagues for their personal use (but not for Commercial Use)
• Inclusion in a thesis or dissertation (provided that this is not to be published commercially)
• Use in a subsequent compilation of the author’s works
• Extending the Article to book-length form
• Preparation of other derivative works (but not for Commercial Use)
• Otherwise using or re-using portions or excerpts in other works

8. Authors and Authors Responsibilities

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 properly 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.

Health Technology Assessment in Action does not allow adding authors or changing the first or the corresponding authors afther 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, as well as 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 indicting agreement with the same.

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 properly 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. The Tehran University of Medical Sciences Journals 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, as well as 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 indicting agreement with the same.

Originality and Duplicate Publication

Manuscripts submitted to journal must be original and not published or submitted for publication elsewhere. This rule also applies to manuscripts submitted elsewhere while the TUMS journals contribution is under evaluation. It is mandatory for all authors to resolve any copyright issues when citing a figure or table from a different journal.

9. Author Fees

As Tehran University of Medical Sciences is supporting most of the publishing costs of Health Technology Assessment in Action, Article Processing Charge (APC) and any other publication fees in the journal are free for authors. There is NO APC charges for this journal.

10. Publication Ethics

The journal is committed to apply to all codes and principles of conduct of the publisher, available at: https://htainaction.tums.ac.ir. Details of the journal publication ethics consideration, codes, terms, and rules are:

Health Technology Assessment  in Action owned by Tehran University of Medical Sciences, is committed to apply ethics of publication, based on the COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices. You may find the journal’s code of publication ethics, here.

National Ethics Committee Approval Code

Based on Iran Ministry of Health & Medical Education regulation & rules, all submitted manuscript to the journals should be registered within Iran National Committee for Ethics in Biomedical Research earlier & achieved the Ethics Committee Approval Code which should be submitted along with manuscript & should be mentioned in the last part of manuscript material & methods section. Each Ethics Committee Approval Code will be verified online at Iran National Committee for Ethics in Biomedical Research website available at: https://ethics.research.ac.ir

Introduction

Health Technology Assessment in Action aims to be a main channel of data communication, sharing of ideas and information to the scientific researching community. It is mandatory for us to follow certain code of ethics and it is advices to adhere strictly to the following code of ethics, which will enhance the quality of the published works heavily. This currently written code of ethics is focusing to provide guidance on the proper behavior of editors, authors and reviewers in the process of scientific publication.

Authors and Co-authors

Health Technology Assessment in Action is committed to follow and apply “International Standards for Authors” of Committee on Publication Ethics in designing and leading the Journal’s reviewing and publishing process and dealing with their issues. You may find the International Standards for Authors, here. Authors should read the standard and apply it on their works, completely.
Authors submitting a paper confirm that the understanding that the manuscript have been read and approved by all authors and that all authors agree to the submission of the manuscript to the Journal. Health Technology Assessment in Action adheres to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

• 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.

It is a requirement that all authors have been accredited as appropriate upon submission of the manuscript. Contributors who do not qualify as authors should be mentioned under Acknowledgements.
In addition, authors are advised to follow the following code of ethics strictly submit manuscripts, which are their originals works or of the work, they are associated with during their tenure.
Submitted manuscripts should contain original and new results, data, and their ideas, which are not submitted for publishing to other publications or published elsewhere. Fabrication of data and results, intellectual property theft and plagiarism are highly unacceptable, it is beyond the ethics of an author. Information obtained via various media should be provided in the manuscript only with prior permission from the owner of the source of information or data.
They should properly cite the work they are referring; authors are advised to crosscheck the reference before submission of manuscript.
They may not promote in any form via any media to get their works published. No article should have an author who is not directly involved in the work for any means or reasons.
Authors and co-authors are requested to review and ensure the accuracy and validity of all the results prior to submission. Any potential conflict of interest should be informed to the editor in advance. Authors are bound by the Creative Commons licensing policy of publication.
All authors are requested to submit the copyright transfer form without failure once they receive the acceptance of their article for publication.

Editors

Health Technology Assessment in Action is committed to follow and apply “International Standards for Editors” of Committee on Publication Ethics in designing and leading the Journal’s reviewing and publishing process and dealing with their issues. You may find the International Standards for Editors, here.
The term editor is a common terminology used to refer Chief Editor of any journal, Content editor, and Subject Editor and Editorial board members.
Editors of the Health Technology Assessment in Action are insisted to have full responsibility for editorial and technical decisions of the journal. Any editor or office bearer should not intervene or give comment on any editorial decisions taken on any manuscript by the concerned editor. Editors are requested to give unbiased considerations for the articles submitted. Health Technology Assessment in Action aims for rapid publication, editors are advised to process the manuscripts promptly and diligently.
Editors are the sole responsible persons for the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript, it may be subjected to peer review but the final decision is bound to the concerned editor.
Any decision taken or matter of concern about a submitted article should not be revealed to anyone by an editor. If one of the editor is willing to publish an article the article should be processed by another editor.
Editor should refrain from using the information, data, theories, or interpretations of any submitted manuscript in her/his own work until that manuscript is in press.

Reviewers

Reviewers are the main members contributing for the benefit of the journal being a peer reviewed (blind referee) journal they are insisted not to disclose their identity in any form.
A reviewer should immediately decline to review an article submitted if he/she feels that the article is technically unqualified or if the timely review cannot be done by him/her or if the article has a conflict of interest.
All submissions should be treated as confidential, editorial approval might be given for any outside person’s advice received.
No reviewer should pass on the article submitted to him/her for review to another reviewer in his own concern, it should be declined immediately.
Reviewers being the base of the whole quality process should ensure that the articles published should be of high quality and original work. He may inform the editor if he finds the article submitted to him for review is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge.
There are no hard and fast rules to analysis an article, this can be done on case-to-case basis considering the worthiness, quality, and originality of the article submitted.
In general, cases the following may be checked in a review

• Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to author guidelines
• Purpose and Objective of the article
• Method of using transitions in the article
• Introduction given and the conclusion/ suggestions provided
• References provided to substantiate the content
• Grammar, punctuation and spelling
• Plagiarism issues
• Suitability of the article to the need

A reviewer’s comment decides the acceptance or rejection of an article and they are one major element in a peer review process. All our reviewers are requested to go through the articles submitted to them for review in detail and give the review comments without any bias, which will increase the quality of our journals.

Breach of Code

Being an association dedicated for the researcher fraternity, we all should ensure that the code of ethics formed is followed in all possible ways. Being a not-for-profit body it is the internal responsibility of a person whom should have to follow the codes, there is no enforcement to follow.
Health Technology Assessment in Action committee members are entitled to take action against an individual if they found to be violating the code.

Clinical Trial Registry

All clinical trials should be registered earlier in one of the worldwide clinical trial registries like: http://irct.ir/.
The clinical trial code should be provided at the time of submission.

COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts

Health Technology Assessment in Action 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 Practice 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 Editorsshould 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 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 practice 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 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 ICMJE 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.

Plagiarism
All authors are strongly recommended to check their manuscripts content before its submission to the journal for publication. The Authors may use trustable valid "Plagiarism Checking software’s" 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’s. If the Reviewers, Editor-in-Chiefs, Readers or Editorial Staffs suspect or notice any types of plagiarism at any stage of 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 detected in a submitted manuscript or if it is found in a published paper.

11. Publishing Schedule

The Journal is published in a Quarterly basis.

12. Archiving Policy

The journal is now archiving electronically at the local & international repositories as follows:

Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ)
Scientific Information Database (SID)
Magiran

13. Revenue Sources

Tehran University of Medical Sciences is supporting most of the publishing costs of Health Technology Assessment in Action. So Article Processing Charge (APC) and any other publication fees in the journal are free for authors. There is NO APC charges for this journal.

14. Advertising

According to Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) Journals Publishing House, we don't accept advertisement in any case.

15. Direct Marketing

Health Technology Assessment in Action don't have any direct marketing activities.

16. The Publisher Principles: Codes of Conduct and Ethical Guidelines

Health Technology Assessment in Action is committed to apply following codes and principles of conduct of the publisher, Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) Journals Publishing House.

• TUMS Journal’s Editorial Policy
• TUMS Journals Peer Review Policy 
• TUMS Journals Ethical Considerations
• TUMS Journals Advertising Policy