Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
JAST's publication decision is based on a codified process. Journal policies are a part of this process. Content compatibility of each submitted paper with the scope of journal is one of the journal policies. COPE's guidelines also check in this part. Submitted papers must be free of allegations such as libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Reviewer comments are another part of decision process. The results of these two parts determine the final decision for each paper. JAST has been authorized to select valuable submitted papers for publication.
JAST has commitment to protect all information of submitted articles from untrusted ones. In this regard, JAST’s editorial boards such as reviewers and advisers are only able to access the information.
Identification of and Dealing with Allegations of Research Misconduct
Publisher and editor of the journal take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In no case shall the journal or its editor encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. In the event that the journal’s publisher or editor is made aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to a published article in the journal –the publisher or editor shall follow COPE’s guidelines (or equivalent) in dealing with allegations.
Revenue Sources/Advertising/Direct Marketing
JAST is financially supported by Iranian Aerospace Society, and has no other sources for earning funds. JAST accepts No advertisements in the site or even as a report article.
JAST is published two issues per year. All the content from the beginning to the end will be available for ever on JAST exclusive website. Also JAST has the plan to enter to Scopus and DOAJ databases
Duties of Authors Authorship
Submitted papers must be approved by its author(s) to consider for refereeing in JSLIS. Author(s) must thus have an active presence to design and prepare all materials of their papers. ALL of the authors must have critically reviewed its content and have approved the final version submitted for publication.
Submitted papers must be approved by its author(s) to consider for refereeing in JAST. Author(s) must thus have an active presence to design and prepare all materials of their papers. ALL of the authors must have critically reviewed its content and have approved the final version submitted for publication.
Authors are responsible for the accuracy of the manuscript content. They should also sign an agreement form confirming their contribution in writing the manuscript. Papers are only considered for publication once consent is given by all contributing authors
Originality and Plagiarism
Author(s) must present original works for consideration in JAST . In papers contained any part of a published article, author(s) have to properly cite or quote the source of the published article. JAST utilizes "Plagiarism Detection Software" for checking the originality of submitted papers in the reviewing process.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
Author(s) should not submit papers if those papers have been previously presented for refereeing to other journals. Simultaneous submission of a paper in more than one journal will be faced to unethical publishing behaviors.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be affected on influence the results or interpretation of the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer reviewers have an effective role in assistance the editor to make editorial decisions. They also can assist the authors to improve their papers throughout the editorial communications.
Each one of peer reviewers who feels unqualified to review a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.