Journals of Sham's land taking all the necessary procedures against the wrong practices in the publication domain ensures to keep the values and higher standards of scientific publication. So, malpractices prevention in publication ,such as impersonating and undeclared reprinting , is one of the responsibility of the administration and the Journal Editorial Body. Therefore , strict procedures should be taken against any behavior which is not committed to the accredited publication morals.

Publication Decisions:

1. The journal Manager is in charge of taking responsibility in the final action related to publication process and basic or partial revision-acceptance or rejection of the research.
2. The decision of publication or non publication is based on referees' reports and notes, the scientific value of the research, its originality, clarity and its relevance with the Journal specialization.
3. The editor may need to counsel other editors and specialists referees to make decisions regarding the offered researches.
4. The editor takes into consideration matters related to defamation, violation of copyrights and plagiarism .The manager of the journals should be informed to take strict procedures.

Confidentiality

1. The editor is committed with the editorial body to keep everything secret related to any information regarding the researches under evaluation .The research is informed about the evaluation result formally. They tell nothing about the referees' attitudes even after the publication decision except things related to impersonating, pilgrimage against which strict legal measures should be taken.
2. Articles are revised initially by the editor. The editor may refuse the offered research before choosing the referees ,either because the research is not related to the journals domain or the research is with low-quality which is not promoted to be evaluated.
3. Articles which are considered qualified are sent to three specialized referees in the domain. Referees should not be known to each other and they have to decide whether the research is valid for publication as it is ,if it needs minor or major modifications to be published, or it is not valid for publication at all
4. Referees send their reports to the editor as well as the researcher(or researchers)to comment on and do the necessary modifications .
5. The researcher is informed formally in case of rejection of the research .
6. The process of evaluation should be performed within two months maximum. Accepted articles are usually published within four months, the next volume.

Transparent Refereeing Process

1. The journal Manager should evaluate the articles regardless of the authors' ethnical background, their gender, religious beliefs, their nationality or their intellectual attitudes.
2. The decision of the editor to accept or refuse the presented article for publication should be related to the originality of the research ,its clarity, and connection with the aims and the domain of the journal specialization.
3. The editor should give the authors the possibility of nominating referees or their request not to have certain referees to revise their papers.

Announcement ,academic Integrity and conflicts of interests.

1. The editor and the staff of the editorial body should not use the unpublished materials which were discovered in the presented paper for their private research purposes without handwritten agreement from the researcher.
2. The Confidentiality of the invented ideas or the acquired data should be strictly kept in the process of revising researches and they should not be used for personal benefit of the editor or any of the member of the editorial staff.
3. The editor should ask referees to reveal any conflicts of interests when accepting to verify a work and when sending the reports of evaluation. The editor should ask the referees to refuse participation in evaluation if they were in a position which did not allow them to conduct unbiased revision( such as relatives , the referee is the supervisor of the research as basic or participant or the research was conducted in a laboratory supervised by the referee) .
4. The sent researches for evaluation are dealt with, in which one of the researchers at least participated in publishing researches with the editor or one of the members of the editorial body. as original researches that submit to evaluation but under the supervision of the journal principal in cooperation with the editorial body members except the one who participated in the previous researches.
5. In the case of the editor's desire or any of the publishing staff in the journal or depositing publication for one of their students in higher studies , the journal principal supervise the referee process and name the referees in cooperation with an editorial member with experience and specialization.
6. The journal principle is not allowed to publish in any of the journals related. In case any of higher students offered to publish, he/she is not allowed to see the names of the referee committee.
7. The editor should ask research presenters to reveal any conflicts of interest and correcting in case of discovering them after publication.

Procedures of dealing with wrong practices in publication

1. The editor inform immediately about any wrong behavior discovered pre, during or post publication in case one of the editorial staff or referees know about that.
2. Anyone informing about wrong practices should provide evidence and enough details.
3. After revealing such behavior , the journal principal and the editor began immediate detection and taking the claims seriously until they take decision based on clear evidence.
4. Detections about wrong practices can be conducted even if they are discovered after a long period of publication.
5. If it is proved that there is a violation of publication morals , the journal principal in line with the editor inform the researcher or researchers about the matter to give them a chance to reply to the complaints or the claims.
6. If the wrong behavior is minor, the journal principal solves the matter internally without resorting to take legal procedures according to the accredited methods.
7. If the wrong behavior is serious ,the journal principal in cooperation with the editor inform university deputy of scientific affairs and scientific research to conduct further detections and evaluate the extent of danger of misbehavior. Then, legal procedures are followed according

The researcher responsibility

    1 . Commitment to accredited publication standards

2. Researchers should stick to the standards and guidelines specified by the journal and stick to the accredited standards and principles.
3. Researchers should affirm that they are committed to the authoring standards of the journal.
4. The researcher should provide a detailed description of the research and an adequate explanation by using scientific method, moving away from unsuitable lengthening and depending on the appropriate rules for quotation.
5. Researchers should include details and enough references within the presented research according to the guide of writing the accredited scientific research in the Journals.
6. Researchers should avoid inappropriate practices by sending the same research to more than one journal simultaneously.
7. Researchers may be asked to offer the raw material of their work with the research paper to be refereed, and they should be ready to make information available to readers , if required.
8. Researchers should provide original researches and mention the contributions of others. In addition, the researcher should mention the researches which have effect in identifying the presented research nature.
9. The researcher with whom the correspondences are conducted should get written permission from all participant researchers who participated in the work . If the researcher is a student of higher studies ,he/she should provide agreement letter from the supervisors on his dissertation.
10. If the researcher discovers a disastrous error in his/her published work ,he/she should inform the editor to delete the error or correct it.

Confidentiality and Objectivity

1. All referees who revise the articles on behalf of the journal should understand and stick to the secret standards related to the process of research revision.
2. Referees should deal with the researches they receive as secret documents and they should not reveal or discuss anything about them with others except what the editor permits or the journals principal.
3. Referees should conduct the referring process objectively and they should not direct any personal criticism to the researcher
4. Referees should express their point of view with clarity and honesty and mention their supportive arguments
5. Referees' names and their belonging should be kept in secure data base which is in line with data protection standards.