Publication Ethics

Persian Literary Studies Journal abides by the highest international standards of scholarly publishing. The submission of an article for publication in PLSJ implies that you have read and agreed to the journal’s Ethical and Legal Conditions: the manuscript is your own original work, and does not duplicate any previously published work, including your own, without proper referencing. Manuscripts submitted to PLSJ must not be already published, be accepted for publication, be in press, or be under consideration or peer-review elsewhere. Papers must not contain abusive, defamatory, libelous, obscene, fraudulent, or illegal content.



When in doubt, please contact us before submitting a paper. A brief list of the Ethical and Legal Conditions are:


PLSJ Duties:

  • Persian Literary Studies Journal follows a strict non-discriminatory policy in offering its services. All submitted papers will be evaluated for their intellectual substance without regard for issues irrelevant to scholarly standards.
  • Papers are anonymously and doubly peer-reviewed. This guarantees an objective assessment, ensures confidentiality, assists the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and could also help authors improve the paper.
  • No information about a submitted paper will be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, potential reviewers and editorial advisers, as appropriate.
  • The Editor-in-Chief of the journal will decide whether a submitted paper should be published. Guided by the policies of the journal, she may confer with the members of the Editorial Board or be constrained by legal requirements as will then be in force.


Authors’ Duties

  • Authors will ensure that their work is entirely original and if the work and/or words of others are used, proper acknowledgment must be provided.
  • Authors will present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitutes scientific misconduct.
  • The publication of a paper presenting essentially the same research in more than one journal, or primary publication, constitutes unethical publishing and is considered scientific misconduct.
  • In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the Editor-in-Chief will take the appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the paper in question. This includes the publication of an erratum or the complete retraction of the affected work.
  • If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in her own published work, it is her obligation to promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief and cooperate with her to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.
  • Authorship must be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the paper.
  • Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section.


Reviewers’ Duties

  • Any papers received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others, unless authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
  • A reviewer who feels unqualified to review a paper or knows that its timely review will be impossible should decline the invitation to read the paper and notify the Editor-in-Chief, so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
  • Reviewers will not consider evaluating papers 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 submission.
  • Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author will by no means be accepted.
  • Reviewers should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
  • Reviewers will identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s). They should also call to the Editor-in-Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the paper under consideration and any other published material of which they have personal knowledge. Such cases should be accompanied by the relevant citation.


For a full description of the Ethical and Legal Conditions, please visit "Code of Conduct" [COPE] or "Publishing Ethics" [Elsevier].