The policies and ethical principles of this journal are based on the "Charter and Standards of Ethics in Research" of the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, the principles of the International Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE).

this journal and other scientific journals, Authors, reviewers, editorial board, editor and internal director of the journal must adhere to these ethical principles when working with this journal. The publication of an article in this journal is process of permanent knowledge improvement.  It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society of society-owned or sponsored journals. The submitted articles should be in the specialized field of the journal and should be prepared according to the format of the journal.

Editor’s Responsibilities:

• This is the responsibility of the editor in chief to make the final decision about the publication of the submitted papers and their merits based on the passed laws.
• This is the responsibility of the editor in chief to oversee the papers with regard to their consistency with the policies of the editorial board and their merits based on the passed laws.
• The editor in chief is to oversee the content of the papers regardless of the race, gender, religion, origin, and political aspirations of the authors.
• The editor in chief is forbidden to disclose any information about the submitted papers except to the corresponding authors and the publisher.

The reviewing process is double-blind, with author's names withheld from reviewers and reviewer's names kept from authors

Authorship of the paper

• Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.
• All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
• The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

• Authors must submit scholarly papers based on their own research achievements with a scientific expression in accordance with the Journal’s style guide.
• Papers must be sufficiently detailed and referenced to allow other scholars to repeat them. False and fake statements are considered unethical and unacceptable.
• Simultaneous multiple submission of papers to different journals and submitting previously published or accepted papers are against the laws.
• Submitted papers by authors must be the result of their own work and any information taken from other studies must be referenced in the paper.
• All individuals who have considerably contributed to the paper must be mentioned as co-authors or acknowledged as colleagues.
• The primary author must make sure to include the names of all co-authors in the paper and that they all have read and approved of the final paper and consent to its submission to the journal for publication.
• Should it come to authors’ attention at any stage, that there are any mistakes or imprecisions in their papers, they must inform the editor in chief or the publisher and either correct them or withdraw the papers.
• Should authors be required, they must introduce and provide their raw data, interviews or questionnaires and all related sources used in paper.
• The article submitted by the authors should not overlap more than 15% with other articles of the same author.

Obligations of Reviewers:

• Reviewers must keep all information about the articles confidential and treat them as secret information.
• The reviews should be objective and neutral within a standard framework and on the other hand, the observations and judgments should be presented with solid arguments so that the authors can use them to improve the article. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.
• If a reviewer feels it may not be able to review the article within the appropriate time, he/she must notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.
• Reviewers should express their views clearly with strong arguments.
• The articles that are in the process of being reviewed and not published should never be used by the reviewers without the written consent of the authors.  The information and ideas obtained from these articles should be kept confidential and the reviewer should not use it personally. Reviewers should refrain from reviewing articles in which they may have a personal or group interest and delegate this task to other reviews.
• Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
• Reviewers should also notify the editor-in-chief any similarity or overlap between the article under review and any other published article that they are aware of.
• Peer review can help the editor decide whether or not to accept an article, and can also help the author improve the quality of the article through the editor's relationships with the author.