Iranian Journal of pediatric Nursing (JPEN) is a Quarterly journal for nurses and the other health care professionals involved in the pediatric and neonatal. JPEN provides practical information derived from research and practice and publishes:
• original research articles
• translation reviews of original basic and clinical research for nurses
• evidence-based practice innovations
• research reviews
• case reports
• case studies
• letter to editor
JPEN is a must-read for:
• Nurses, including who are working as staff or investigator at the general ward of pediatric, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) & Like these.
• Nurse ,Physicians and Allied Health Professionals including all those who are involved in pediatric and neonatal.
PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
DUTIES OF EDITORS
The ethic statements of the Iranian Journal of pediatric Nursing , concerning the duties of the editors, are based on Committee on Publication Ethics, Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Our Editors actively work to enhance the quality of the Journal.
The editors evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, citizenship, sexual orientation, gender, ethnic origin, religious belief, or political orientation of the authors.
The editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher. Our peer reviewing is double blind.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by editors without the express written consent of the author.
DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as secret documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
A reviewer should call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept secret and not used for personal advantage.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts which can give birth to conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
DUTIES OF AUTHORS
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The articles should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Usually, authors should not publish manuscripts presenting the same research in more than one journal or primary publication.
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given like publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
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 are included on the article, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and have agreed to its submission to the Journal for its publication.
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the Journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or emend the paper.