Ethical behavior is expected from all of those involved in the publishing process. Although we list the ethical conduct expected from (of) each role, we also follow the guidelines of COPE (https://publicationethics.org/). IJCE recommend the editors, reviewers and authors to kindly go through the COPE websites for more information. Copyright violations (infringement) is also considered unethical. All articles published by University Of Anbar (Iraqi Journal of Civil Engineering IJCE) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License CC BY 4.0. This permits anyone to copy. redistribute, remix, transmit, and adapt the work provided. Based on COPE's Publications ethics, the following statements explain the ethical behavior of all parties involved or participated in the publication process of an article in IJCE. These parties are the author(s), the editor, the reviewer and the publisher.
1. Originality: Manuscripts submitted by authors should be original, not have been published previously in any scientific resources (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a lecture, or thesis). Manuscripts should not be previously published in a different language and translated to English. Authors should appropriately cite or quote the work or words of others. The double or multi-submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal is unacceptable and unethical.
2. Reporting of Technical Codes, Standards and Testing guides: authors submitting an original work should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance, following applicable technical codes, standards and testing guidelines. A manuscript should contain sufficient details and references to permit experiment to be repeated by others. Research images should not be modified in a misleading way. The results of any submitted manuscript should be presented honestly and without fabrication.
3. Acknowledgment of Sources: authors should give the proper acknowledgment of the work of others. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work should be cited in the manuscript.
4. Conflicts of Interest: all authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.
5. Funding: authors should provide and identify the given financial support for the research and/or preparation of the manuscript.
6. Authorship: The submitting corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the manuscript article's publication has been approved by all the other co-authors. In this regard, all authors have agreed to allow the corresponding author to serve as the correspondent with the editorial office, to review the edited manuscript and proof in case of acceptance. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors, no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. In addition, Authors should alert the editor promptly if they discover an error in any submitted, accepted or published work.
7. Materials with hazards and data from human: if the project involves chemicals, bio-materials, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. For experimental studies involving animals/human, such as experimental volunteers, green building issues and civil engineering design based on statics related to human or populations, authors must obtain approval from their respective Institutional Animal/Human Ethics Committee prior to manuscript submission
1. Confidentiality: the Editors 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, as appropriate. Clearly, confidentiality of submitted manuscripts must be maintained by the Editors.
2. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an Editor's own research without the explicit written consent of the author(s).
3. Decisions: the Editor of the journal should have the full authority to reject/accept a manuscript. The decision will be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the journal's scope. Current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism should also be considered. The editor-in-chief and the editorial board are obliged to announce the final results about acceptance or rejection of the article to the corresponding author promptly.
4. Review: The editorial board has the responsibility and authority of appointing the reviewers and acceptance or rejection of the articles based on the reviewers’ opinions. In addition, the editor-in-chief and the editorial board are obliged to take the necessary measures to register and archive the article review documents as scientific documents and maintain the identity of the reviewers confidential. A database of the eligible reviewers should be organized by the Editors. This database subject to continuous update based on the reviewers’ performance.
1. Confidentiality: Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. In addition, after the publication of the article the reviewer is not allowed to disclose any details about the article beyond what has been published by the journal. The Reviewers should provide comments in time that will help editors to make decision on the submitted manuscript. Any delay in the reviewer decision will negatively affect the reviewer promptness.
2. Contribution to Editorial Decisions: The peer review assists the Editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript. If a selected referee feels unqualified to review the research reported in the submitted manuscript should notify the editor and decline the review.
3. Standards of Objectivity: Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviews should be conducted objectively.
4. Acknowledgment of Sources: 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. A reviewer should also call to the Editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge
5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: The Reviewers should disclose and try to avoid any conflict of interest. Reviewers should consult the Editor before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscripts.