Iran Occupational Health

Overview & scope

Publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal goes far beyond simply sharing data: it can shape clinical guidelines, inform health policy, influence patient care and affect academic careers. Because of this impact, everyone involved in the publication process at Iran Occupational Health (IOH) journal including authors, editors, reviewers, editorial staff and the publisher is expected to follow clear, written standards of ethical behavior and research integrity.
This policy covers both research ethics (responsible conduct of studies involving humans, animals and in vitro models) and publication ethics (authorship, peer review, editorial decisions, conflicts of interest, data management, patient consent and post-publication updates). It is informed by international frameworks such as the 2024 revision of the Declaration of Helsinki and ICMJE Recommendations for human research, as well as COPE guidance and good-practice documents from major scholarly publishers.

Core ethical principles in medical & health research

Ethically sound research combines strong scientific design with respect for people, animals and communities. Across study types, Iran Occupational Health (IOH) journal emphasizes:

• Scientific rigor: research questions, methods and analyses should be appropriate and robust enough to generate useful, interpretable knowledge. Exposing humans or animals to risk without a realistic prospect of benefit to science or health is not acceptable.
• Respect for persons: including respect for dignity, autonomy, cultural context and privacy, with special care for those who may be vulnerable or have limited capacity to consent.
• Beneficence and non-maleficence: maximizing potential benefits and minimizing foreseeable harms, while maintaining a favorable risk–benefit balance throughout the project.
• Justice and fairness: fair selection of participants, equitable access to potential benefits, and avoidance of exploitation in low-resource settings.
• Integrity and accountability: honest design, conduct, analysis and reporting; willingness to correct the record when necessary; and openness to scrutiny by peers.

These principles also apply to professional conduct in publishing. Authors, editors and reviewers must treat one another with courtesy, avoid discrimination and harassment, and use formal channels (not personal attacks) to raise concerns and resolve disagreements.

Research involving human participants, data or biological materials

All submissions that involve human participants, identifiable personal data or human biological specimens must demonstrate appropriate ethical oversight. Manuscripts should clearly state:

• the name of the responsible ethics committee or institutional review board;
• the approval number or written waiver (where applicable); and
• the main ethical frameworks or regulations followed (for example, the Declaration of Helsinki and relevant national regulations).

Ethical review is usually required not only for interventional clinical trials, but also for observational studies, registries, retrospective chart reviews, surveys, qualitative studies, and secondary analyses of identifiable data. Multi-center projects must ensure that all relevant committees approve the protocol, or that a central review has been accepted by participating sites.
When formal ethics review was not required under local rules, authors must explain the basis for this in the Methods section and describe how fundamental ethical principles including respect for persons, confidentiality and fairness were upheld in practice.

Informed consent, privacy & vulnerable groups

Informed consent should be viewed as an ongoing conversation between researchers and participants, not as a one-time signature. Participants should receive concise, understandable information about:

• the purpose of the study, procedures and expected duration;
• foreseeable risks and burdens, potential benefits and alternatives;
• data handling, including who will have access and how long data will be stored; and
• their rights, including the right to refuse or withdraw without negative consequences for clinical care or other entitlements.

Consent materials and discussions should be appropriate to local language, literacy and cultural norms, allowing time for questions. Where capacity is limited for example in minors, adults lacking decision-making capacity or other vulnerable groups, legal requirements for surrogate consent and participant assent must be followed. Research with such groups requires strong scientific and ethical justification, particularly when risks are more than minimal or direct benefit is uncertain.
Protection of privacy involves more than removing obvious identifiers. Authors should minimize collection of identifiable data, use coding or pseudonymization where possible, and describe who had access to identifiable information and under what safeguards. When data cross borders, authors must respect applicable data-protection laws and institutional policies.

Patient images, case reports & consent for publication

Case reports and image-based articles contribute valuable clinical insight but often include details that could allow a patient, or those close to them, to recognize the individual. Whenever an article contains identifiable information including photographs, videos, voice recordings or detailed descriptions of rare conditions authors must obtain specific written consent for publication in a scientific journal.
Consent for clinical care or for participation in research does not automatically cover publication. A separate publication consent should explain in plain language:

• what information and images will be published and in what formats;
• that publication may occur online and in print, potentially indexed by search engines and archived long-term;
• that complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed, even when identifiers are removed; and
• under which license (for example, Creative Commons) the material will be shared.

Authors must obtain consent for publication whenever a manuscript contains information that could reasonably allow an individual to recognize themselves or be recognized by others. This includes, for example:

• case reports and case series, even if names and hospital numbers are removed;
• clinical photographs, radiological images, videos or audio recordings of identifiable people;
• genetic pedigrees or highly specific combinations of age, diagnosis, location and dates; and
• quotes from clinical interviews or consultation notes that could realistically reveal identity.

A simple statement that “consent was obtained” is not enough. The consent process should ensure that the person understands:

• what will be published (text, images, video, audio, supplementary material);
• that publication may be online, long-lasting and accessible worldwide;
• what steps will be taken to protect privacy and what limits exist; and
• that once an article is published, complete withdrawal may not be technically possible.

Consent should normally be documented in writing or via a secure digital process. The journal may provide template forms, but institutions can also use locally approved formats if they clearly cover publication. The signed forms should be stored securely by the authors or their institution, not uploaded with the manuscript.
The manuscript must include a concise statement, usually under “Consent for publication” in the Ethics section, confirming that:

• consent for publication was obtained from the individual(s) or authorized representative(s); and
• copies of the signed consent forms will be made available to the editor on reasonable request.

For deceased individuals, authors should state that consent for publication was sought from the next of kin or other legally recognized decision-maker, where local law and practice require this.
Signed consent forms should not normally be uploaded with the manuscript to avoid unnecessary exposure of personal data. Simple masking (such as placing a bar over the eyes) is usually insufficient to guarantee anonymity and should not be relied upon alone. If there is any reasonable chance of recognition, written consent is required.
Patients and their representatives should have a meaningful opportunity to reconsider consent for publication while a manuscript is still in preparation or under review. If consent is withdrawn at this stage, authors must promptly inform the journal and, where necessary, withdraw the manuscript or remove the affected material.
Once an article has been formally published and distributed, complete removal is rarely feasible. Copies may have been downloaded, shared, translated or cited. This limitation should be explained clearly during the consent process.
If serious and unforeseen privacy concerns arise after publication, editors will consider proportionate steps such as:

• removing or replacing specific images;
• redacting particular details from online versions; or
• attaching a notice that explains the change and why it was made.

In deciding what action to take, editors will balance respect for the individual’s privacy with the need to preserve the integrity of the scientific record.

Clinical trials, registration & transparency

Interventional clinical trials must be registered in a publicly accessible registry before enrolment of the first participant. Iran Occupational Health (IOH) journal accepts registries that meet WHO and ICMJE criteria, including ClinicalTrials.gov, IRCT and other primary registries within the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.
Manuscripts reporting clinical trials should:

• include the registration number in the Methods section;
• describe primary and secondary outcomes, eligibility criteria and planned analyses consistent with the registered protocol; and
• explain and justify any substantial deviations from the registered design, including changes to outcomes or analysis plans.

Selective reporting of favorable outcomes or suppression of unfavorable results is unethical and can mislead clinicians and patients. Iran Occupational Health (IOH) journal encourages use of established reporting guidelines (such as CONSORT and extensions) and require an explicit statement about data-sharing plans for clinical trials, in line with ICMJE data-sharing recommendations.

Research involving animals

Manuscripts reporting studies with live vertebrate animals (and other organisms covered by local regulations) must state:

• the ethics committee or regulatory body that approved the work;
• license or permit numbers, where applicable; and
• the main welfare frameworks or laws followed.

Authors should design animal experiments according to the “3Rs”: replacement (use non-animal alternatives whenever they can answer the research question), reduction (use the minimum number of animals necessary for robust conclusions) and refinement (minimize pain, distress and lasting harm). Descriptions should include species, strain, sex, age, housing conditions, anesthesia and analgesia, monitoring and humane endpoints.
Iran Occupational Health (IOH) journal encourages adherence to the ARRIVE reporting guidelines, including transparent reporting of randomization, blinding, sample size calculations, inclusion and exclusion criteria and management of missing data. Inadequate description of animal welfare or experimental design may lead to requests for major revision or rejection.

In vitro, ex vivo & laboratory models

In vitro and ex vivo studies involving cell lines, primary cells, tissue explants, organoids or similar systems must be described with enough detail for readers to judge both scientific quality and ethical compliance. Where materials are derived from humans or animals, authors should explain:

• how materials were obtained and under which consent or license;
• whether an ethics committee reviewed and approved their use; and
• any restrictions on storage, reuse or sharing.

Good cell and tissue culture practice includes regular authentication of cell lines, checks for contamination (including mycoplasma), appropriate passage numbers and clear documentation of culture conditions. Misidentified or contaminated lines can undermine entire projects; editors may request evidence of authentication where concerns arise.
Research involving stem cells, embryo-related models, gene editing or other sensitive technologies must comply with applicable professional guidelines and local oversight mechanisms, which should be explicitly acknowledged in the manuscript.

Data integrity, analysis & reproducibility

Ethical research requires accurate and complete reporting of what was done and what was found. Authors should describe their methods with enough detail that a suitably skilled researcher could understand and, where appropriate, repeat the work. This includes recruitment and sampling, data collection procedures, instruments or assays, pre-processing steps, statistical methods, software and version numbers.
Serious breaches of data integrity include:

• fabrication – inventing data or results that were never obtained;
• falsification – manipulating materials, equipment, processes or data (including images) so that the research record no longer reflects the underlying observations; and
• intentional omission of data or analyses that would materially change the interpretation of the findings.

Questionable practices such as selective outcome reporting, unacknowledged “p-hacking”, undisclosed post-hoc subgroup analyses or excessive image enhancement also undermine trust. Iran Occupational Health (IOH) journal may request access to original data, unprocessed images or audit trails when integrity concerns arise.
Where possible, authors are encouraged to deposit de-identified datasets, analytic code and related materials in trusted repositories with persistent identifiers and clear licenses. When legal, ethical or contractual constraints prevent open sharing, authors should explain these constraints and describe how qualified researchers might request access under controlled conditions.

Originality, plagiarism & text recycling

Manuscripts submitted to Iran Occupational Health (IOH) journal must be original and not under consideration elsewhere. Authors must not reproduce text, figures or data from other sources without proper citation and, where necessary, permission. This includes close paraphrasing that remains too similar to the original as well as self-plagiarism (reusing substantial parts of one’s own published work without clear reference).
The journal uses similarity-checking tools as a screening aid using available plagiarism detection software such as iThenticate. Authors remain fully responsible for ensuring that their manuscripts are written in their own words, with accurate acknowledgement of prior work. If suspected plagiarism is found in an article either before (by reviewers or editorial team) or after (by readers) publication, the journal will act according to COPE's code of conduct and flowcharts. 

Redundant publication & overlap

Submitting the same or very similar work to more than one journal at the same time is not acceptable. Secondary publications (for example, translations or summaries aimed at different audiences) may be considered if they are clearly labelled, have the consent of all involved editors and include prominent references to the primary publication.

Authorship, contributors & acknowledgements

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made substantial contributions to at least two of the following: conception or design of the work; acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data; drafting the article or critically revising it; and final approval of the version to be published. All authors share responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole.
Contributors who do not meet authorship criteria for example those providing technical support, data collection, language editing or general supervision should be named in an Acknowledgements section, with their permission. Honorary, guest or ghost authorship is not acceptable.

Conflicts of interest & funding

Authors must disclose all financial and non-financial relationships that could reasonably be viewed as influencing the submitted work. This includes funding sources, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, paid expert testimony, patents, leadership roles and relevant personal relationships.
Manuscripts should also describe the role of funders or sponsors in the design of the study, data collection, analysis, interpretation and decision to submit for publication. Where funders had no such role, this should be clearly stated.

Use of AI & digital tools in writing

Use of generative AI or other digital tools in manuscript preparation is governed by the dedicated journal policy on AI & digital tools. In brief, AI systems cannot meet authorship criteria and must not be listed as authors. Substantive use of AI tools in drafting or editing text must be transparently disclosed in a dedicated statement, and human authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy and originality of the content.

Ethical responsibilities of editors

Editors are responsible for ensuring that only work that is scientifically sound, ethically conducted and relevant to the journal’s scope is accepted for publication. Decisions must be based on the manuscript’s content, not on authors’ personal characteristics, institutional affiliation, nationality, political views or commercial considerations.
Editors must:

• manage conflicts of interest by declining to handle manuscripts where their judgment could reasonably be questioned (for example, due to recent collaboration, institutional ties or financial interests);
• organize fair and timely peer review, typically involving at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise;
• treat manuscripts, reviews and correspondence as confidential, sharing them only with those directly involved in the editorial process or in an authorized investigation; and
• avoid using unpublished information obtained through editorial work for personal research advantage or for others’ benefit without explicit permission.

Editors should not pressure authors to cite the journal’s content unless such citations are clearly justified on scholarly grounds. Journal metrics must not override considerations of research quality and integrity.

Ethical responsibilities of peer reviewers

Reviewers should accept invitations only when they have suitable expertise and can commit to providing a thorough, unbiased review within a reasonable timeframe. If they feel unqualified, have insufficient time or identify a significant conflict of interest, they should decline promptly.
Manuscripts sent for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers:

• must not share manuscripts with colleagues or students without the editor’s permission and appropriate acknowledgement;
• must not use unpublished data or ideas obtained through review for their own research or for others’ benefit without explicit consent from authors and the editor; and
• should focus their comments on the scientific content, clarity and ethical aspects of the work, avoiding personal or inflammatory language.

Reviewers should declare any relationships or interests that could be perceived as influencing their assessment (for example, recent collaboration with the authors, institutional links, competing research programs or financial interests). Use of AI tools in peer review must follow the journal AI policy: in particular, confidential manuscripts and reports must not be uploaded to public AI services.

Allegations of misconduct & questionable practices

Misconduct can occur at any stage of the research and publication process. Examples include, but are not limited to:

• fabrication or falsification of data, including inappropriate image manipulation;
• plagiarism, text or figure reuse without proper citation, or undisclosed translation of previously published work;
• improper authorship (guest, gift or ghost authorship) and undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• duplicate or redundant publication without transparency;
• manipulation of peer review (for example, fake reviewer identities, paper mills or inappropriate influence on reviewers); and
• unethical treatment of human participants, research animals or sensitive biological materials.

Concerns may be raised by editors, reviewers, readers, institutions or other stakeholders. Editors will first assess whether the concerns are specific and credible. Depending on the case, they may:

• seek clarification or additional information from the authors;
• request original data, unprocessed images or documentation (for example, ethics approvals, consent forms);
• consult additional reviewers or subject-matter experts; and/or
• contact institutional research-integrity or ethics offices for formal investigation.

Investigations should be conducted fairly, without presuming misconduct, and should respect confidentiality as far as possible Iran Occupational Health (IOH) journal aims to follow COPE-aligned procedures and flowcharts when handling such cases. Outcomes may include rejection of the manuscript, publication of a correction, expression of concern or retraction, and in serious or repeated cases, restrictions on future submissions or reviewer roles.

Research & publication misconduct, complaints & investigations

Research integrity is a shared responsibility. Iran Occupational Health (IOH) journal expects authors, reviewers and editors to follow high standards of honesty, transparency and accountability in planning, conducting and reporting research. The policy applies to all submissions and published articles in the journal, including original research, reviews, case reports, trial reports and other content types, and covers both pre- and post-publication stages.

Corrections, retractions & post-publication updates

Iran Occupational Health (IOH) journal aligns with widely used definitions of research misconduct (for example, national and institutional policies) while also recognizing broader forms of publication misconduct that affect the trustworthiness of the literature.
At a minimum, research misconduct includes:

• fabrication: making up data, results or participants;
• falsification: manipulating materials, equipment, processes or data such that the research is misrepresented;
• plagiarism: presenting the ideas, processes, results or words of others as one’s own without proper attribution.

Publication misconduct extends to unethical behavior in preparing, submitting, reviewing and disseminating manuscripts, including authorship abuse, duplicate or redundant publication, inappropriate image manipulation, peer review manipulation and undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Iran Occupational Health (IOH) journal has a duty to correct the record when errors or integrity issues are identified. The chosen approach depends on how seriously the problem affects the reliability of the work:

• Corrections (errata or corrigenda) are issued when a specific error is identified that does not invalidate the main findings but may mislead readers if left unaddressed.
• Retractions are used when results or conclusions are no longer reliable, when serious misconduct is confirmed, or when ethical problems make continued availability inappropriate.
• Expressions of concern may be published when credible concerns exist but investigations are ongoing or evidence is incomplete.
• Addenda or updates can be used when important additional information becomes available that does not alter the main conclusions but is important for readers.

Correction and retraction notices clearly explain what is being corrected or retracted and why, indicate who is taking the action (authors, editor, publisher) and be freely accessible and linked to the original article. In most cases, the original article remains available with a clear notice; complete removal is reserved for exceptional circumstances (for example, serious legal or privacy concerns).

Core research misconduct

The journal considers the following behaviors to be serious misconduct:

• Fabrication: inventing data, cases, experiments or results that were never obtained, and presenting them as real.
• Falsification: manipulating data, images or experimental procedures for example, selectively reporting favorable results, altering data points, or using inappropriate statistics to give a misleading impression of findings.
• Plagiarism:
  • copying text, figures, tables or ideas from other sources without proper quotation, attribution or permission;
  • re-using large portions of one’s own previously published work without citation (“self-plagiarism”) when it creates redundant or duplicate publications.

These behaviors may occur at the level of individual researchers, groups or through organized fraudulent activities. All are considered incompatible with publication in IUMS journals.

Publication misconduct

Publication misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

• Duplicate or simultaneous submission: submitting the same or highly overlapping manuscript to more than one journal at the same time without disclosure.
• Redundant or “salami-sliced” publication: fragmenting one substantial study into multiple publications without clear justification, or repeating large parts of previous work with minimal new information.
• Improper authorship:
  • adding individuals as authors who do not meet authorship criteria (honorary or gift authorship);
  • excluding individuals who made substantial contributions (ghost authorship);
  • changing authorship or order inappropriately without consent of all authors.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest: failing to declare financial or non-financial relationships that could be perceived to influence the work.
• Peer review manipulation:
  • suggesting fake reviewers or using fabricated identities;
  • attempting to influence reviewers or editors outside the formal peer review process;
  • breaching reviewer confidentiality or misusing privileged information obtained through peer review.
• Image and data manipulation: altering figures, images or datasets in ways that violate the Image integrity or Data sharing policies.

Some forms of publication misconduct overlap with broader research misconduct and may require institutional investigation.

Questionable research practices (QRPs)

Not all concerns meet formal definitions of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism. Questionable research practices (QRPs) can still compromise reliability and trust, such as:

• selective reporting of outcomes without justification;
• failure to pre-specify key aspects of study design when required (e.g. in clinical trials or registered studies);
• insufficient reporting of methods and data, limiting reproducibility;
• inadequate consideration of ethical approvals or participant consent;
• inappropriate statistical analyses or p-hacking.

When QRPs are identified, editors may request clarifications, additional analysis or corrections. In cases where QRPs substantially compromise the work, stronger actions (such as rejection, retraction or institutional referral) may be needed.

Misuse of AI & digital tools

Generative AI and other digital tools can assist authors (for example, in language editing, coding support or image analysis), but misuse may constitute misconduct. Examples include:

• using AI tools to fabricate data, images, references or experimental results;
• submitting AI-generated text or images as original human work without disclosure, contrary to the Generative AI & digital tools policy;
• allowing AI tools to create or modify patient images or case details in ways that misrepresent clinical information;
• using AI to translate or rewrite others’ work without attribution, leading to disguised plagiarism.

Authors must follow the Generative AI & digital tools policy and remain fully responsible for the integrity, originality and accuracy of content submitted in their name.

How to raise concerns or complaints

Concerns about possible misconduct can be raised by authors (including co-authors) of the article, reviewers, readers or other researchers and institutions, funders or regulatory bodies.
To raise a concern or complaint, please contact the editorial office of the journal. Provide, as far as possible:

• the article title, journal name and DOI or manuscript ID;
• a clear description of the concern;
• supporting evidence (for example, annotated figures, similarity reports, correspondence or relevant documents).

Concerns should be raised in good faith and, where possible, with sufficient detail to allow meaningful assessment.

Initial assessment & triage

When a concern is received, editors will:

• acknowledge receipt, usually to the complainant (if identifiable);
• conduct an initial, confidential assessment to determine whether the issue appears credible and within the journal’s remit;
• decide whether the matter can be handled through editorial correspondence with authors or whether it requires referral to institutional or funder-level investigation.

During this stage, editors may:

• request clarifications or original data from the authors;
• consult specialist editors, reviewers or external experts;
• use similarity-checking tools or image analysis software where relevant.

If the concern appears minor and can be resolved by explanation or a small correction, editors will guide authors accordingly. If the concern suggests possible serious misconduct, a more formal investigation process is initiated.

Investigations: roles of the journal, institutions & funders

The journal are not investigative authorities, but they play a key role in identifying and escalating concerns. In serious cases, particularly when research misconduct is alleged, the primary responsibility for conducting a formal investigation usually lies with the authors’ employing institution(s); and/or funding bodies or relevant regulatory authorities.
When appropriate, editors may inform the relevant institution(s) or funder(s) and share available evidence; request that they investigate and share non-confidential outcomes with the journal; and issue an expression of concern while investigations are ongoing, in line with the Corrections & retractions policy.
Editorial decisions (for example, to reject, correct or retract) are informed by but not always identical to external investigation findings. The journal may act independently when timely action is necessary to protect readers or patients.

Evidence, confidentiality & data access

When concerns are investigated, the journal aims to seek sufficient evidence to make a fair and proportionate decision; give authors an opportunity to respond to allegations and present relevant information; protect confidential information (for example, patient data, whistleblower identities, proprietary methods) to the extent permitted by law and policy.
Authors may be asked to provide original data and image files, documentation of ethics approval, consent forms or trial registration, and correspondence or protocols relevant to the concern. Information shared by complainants is treated sensitively. Anonymous or pseudonymous reports may be considered if they are supported by verifiable evidence.

Possible outcomes & editorial actions

Depending on the strength of evidence and severity of the issue, possible outcomes include:

• No action: when concerns are not supported by evidence or are based on misunderstanding.
• Clarification: minor issues addressed through correspondence or updated information on the article page.
• Correction / addendum: when the main findings remain valid but parts of the article require amendment, as described in the Corrections policy.
• Expression of concern: when serious doubts exist but investigations are incomplete or inconclusive.
• Retraction or withdrawal: when findings are unreliable or serious misconduct is confirmed.
• Rejection / removal during peer review: for submissions not yet published but affected by suspected misconduct.

Editorial notices (corrections, expressions of concern, retractions) are labelled clearly and linked to the affected article.

Sanctions, notices & reporting

In addition to article-level actions, the journal may, where appropriate:

• decline to consider future manuscripts from individuals or groups for a defined period, especially in cases of deliberate or repeated misconduct;
• inform the authors’ institutions, funders or regulatory bodies of confirmed misconduct;
• share relevant information with other journals or publishers when this is necessary to protect the integrity of the literature.

Sanctions aim to be proportionate and focused on protecting the scholarly record, not on punishment alone. The nature and duration of any sanctions depend on factors such as intent, severity, impact and prior history.

Protection of whistleblowers & respondents

The journal recognizes that raising concerns about misconduct can be challenging and that individuals accused of misconduct are also entitled to fair treatment. Editors therefore aim to:

• take concerns raised in good faith seriously, regardless of the status or affiliation of the complainant;
• avoid unnecessary disclosure of whistleblower identities, unless required by law or agreed with the individual;
• refrain from making premature or public accusations before investigations are complete;
• give respondents an opportunity to respond to allegations and clarify misunderstandings.

Retaliation against individuals who raise concerns in good faith is inconsistent with the values of the journal and may itself be reported to relevant institutions or bodies.