Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

ARYA Journal is a bimonthly peer-reviewed scientific Journal providing academically sound, clinically practical information for physicians, medical scientists and health care providers. ARYA Journal is published by Isfahan Cardiovascular Research Center. Journal editors review articles in fields of Atherosclerosis, its Risk Factors and its related Diseases.

Cardiology Cases:

Cardiology Research and Practice, Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, Cardiothoracic Surgery, Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Cardiovascular Diabetology, Cardiovascular Diseases, Cardiovascular Disorders, Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy, Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology, Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics, Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, Cardiovascular Nursing, Cardiovascular Pathology, Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Cardiovascular Psychiatry and Neurology, Cardiovascular Radiation Medicine, Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine, Cardiovascular Surgery, Cardiovascular Therapeutics, Cardiovascular Toxicology, Cardiovascular Translational Research, Cardiovascular Ultrasound, Clinical Research in Cardiology, Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine, Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports, Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports, Echocardiography, Interventional Cardiology, Molecular and Cellular Cardiology, Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Nuclear Cardiology, Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases, Preventive Cardiology, Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease, Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine

 

 

Section Policies

Editorial

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Original Article(s)

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review Article(s)

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Meta-analysis

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Report(s)

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Letter(s) to Editor

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Short Communication(s)

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Special Report(s)

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Images in Clinical Medicine

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Series

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Submitted papers will be examined for the evidence of plagiarism using PlagScan automated plagiarism detection service. Manuscripts are examined by members of the editorial staff, and two thirds are sent to external reviewers to be peer-reviewed via a double-blinded process. We encourage authors to suggest the names of possible reviewers, but we reserve the right of final selection. Communications about manuscripts will be sent after the review and editorial decision-making process is complete. After acceptance, editorial system makes a final language and scientific edition. No substantial change is permitted by authors after acceptance. It is the responsibility of corresponding author to answer probable questions and approve final version.

 

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

 

Section A: Publication and Authorship

  1. All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper. Reviewers are being selected by Associate Editors and Editor in Chief. Author also can propose reviewers for some journals and article types.
  2. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, originality, readability, statistical validity and language.
  3. The possible decisions include acceptance, minor revisions, major revision or rejection.
  4. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  5. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  6. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
  7. No research can be included in more than one publication, whether within the same journal or in another journal.


Section B: Authors' Responsibilities

  1. Authors must certify that their manuscript is their original work.
  2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere, or even submitted and been in reviewed in another journal.
  3. Authors must participate in the peer review process and follow the comments.
  4. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  5. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research. Level of their contribution also must be defined in the “Authors’ Contributions” section of the article.
  6. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
  7. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
  8. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
  9. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
  10. Authors must not use irrelevant sources that may help other researches/journals.
  11. Authors cannot withdraw their articles within the review process or after submission, or they must pay the penalty defined by the publisher.


Section C: Peer Review/Responsibility for the Reviewers

  1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.
  3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments in 500 to 1000 words.
  4. Reviewers may identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  6. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.


Section D: Editorial Responsibilities

  1. Editors (Associate Editors or Editor in Chief) have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
  2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
  3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
  6. Editors should have a clear picture of a research's funding sources.
  7. Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.
  8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
  9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers (in half blind peer review journals).
  10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to international accepted ethical guidelines.
  11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
  12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
  13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
  14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
  15. Editors must not change their decision after submitting a decision (especially after reject or accept) unless they have a serious reason.


Section E: Publishing Ethics Issues

  1. All editorial members, reviewers and authors must confirm and obey rules defined by COPE.
  2. Corresponding author is the main owner of the article so she/he can withdraw the article when it is incomplete (before entering the review process or when a revision is asked for).
  3. Authors cannot make major changes in the article after acceptance without a serious reason.
  4. All editorial members and authors must will to publish any kind of corrections honestly and completely.
  5. Any notes of plagiarism, fraudulent data or any other kinds of fraud must be reported completely to COPE.

 

Authorship Criteria

As stated in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, credit for authorship requires substantial contributions to: 1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND 2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND 3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND 4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

All authors must sign authorship form attesting that they fulfill the authorship criteria. Your submitted manuscript will not be processed unless this form is sent. There should be a statement in manuscript explaining contribution of each author to the work. Those contributors who did not fulfill authorship criteria should be listed in acknowledgments.

Any change in authorship after submission must be approved in writing by all authors.