Publication Ethics

The Ethical Standards of the “Journal of Hydraulic Structures (JHS)”


The publication of a scientific article in our peer-reviewed journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. We carefully watch direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors, the institutions that support the presented research, as well as the embodied scientific method. It is therefore extremely essential for us to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the authors, the journal editors, the peer reviewers, and the publisher.


Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Publication Decisions

JHS's publication decision is based on a codified process. Journal policies are a part of this process. Content compatibility of each submitted paper with the scope of journal is one of the journal policies. Submitted papers must be free of allegations such as libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Reviewer comments are another part of decision process. The results of these two parts determine the final decision for each paper. JHS has been authorized to select valuable submitted papers for publication.



JHS has commitment to protect all information of submitted articles from untrusted ones. In this regard, JHS’s editorial boards such as reviewers and advisers are only able to access the information.


Identification of and Dealing with Allegations of Research Misconduct

Publisher and editor of the journal take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In no case shall the journal or its editor encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. In the event that the journal’s publisher or editor is made aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to a published article in the journal –the publisher or editor shall follow COPE’s guidelines in dealing with allegations.

If there is a suspicion of misconduct, the editorial board will carry out a comprehensive investigation and if the allegation seems to raise valid concerns, the accused author will be contacted and given an opportunity to explain the issue. If the misconduct is established beyond reasonable doubt, the Editor-in-Chief may implement the following actions:

  • If the article is still under consideration, it may be rejected and returned to the author.
  • If the article has already been published online, either an erratum will be placed with the article or complete retraction of the article will occur.
  • The author’s institution may be informed as well.


Specifications of a Good Scientific Practice

Authors should refrain from misrepresenting research results. Maintaining integrity of the research and its presentation can be achieved by following the rules of good scientific practice, as listed below:

  • The manuscript should not been submitted to more than one journal simultaneously,
  • The manuscript should not been published previously,
  • A single research should not split up into parts,
  • Fabrication and manipulation of data are not acceptable,
  • Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given,
  • Consent to submit has been received explicitly from all co-authors, as well as from the responsible authorities of the organizations which have supported the research ,
  • Authors whose names appear on the submission have contributed sufficiently to the scientific work,
  • Authors are to ensure the proper author list, corresponding author, and order of authors at submission,
  • Authors are be prepared to send relevant documentation or data in order to verify the validity of the research results, upon request.

Revenue Sources/Advertising/Direct Marketing

JHS is financially supported by Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran, and has no other sources for earning funds. JHS accepts No advertisements in its official website.


Publishing Schedule/Archiving

JHS publishes TWO issues per year, with occasional special issues coming in addition. All the contents of the journal are available forever on JHS's exclusive website.


Duties of Authors


Submitted papers must be approved by the author(s) to consider for refereeing in JHS. Author(s) must thus have an active presence to design and prepare all materials of their papers. All the authors must have critically reviewed its content and have approved authenticity the final version of the manuscript submitted for publication. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of the manuscript content. They should also sign an agreement form confirming their contribution in writing the manuscript. Papers are only considered for publication once consent is given by all contributing authors.


Originality and Plagiarism

Author(s) must present original works for consideration in JHS. In papers contained any part of a published article, author(s) have to properly cite or quote the source of the published article. JHS utilizes appropriate plagiarism detection software packages for checking the originality of submitted manuscripts during different steps of the reviewing process.


Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

Author(s) should not submit manuscripts while they have been previously presented for refereeing to other journals. Simultaneous submission of a manuscript in more than one journal will be faced to unethical publishing behaviors.


Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.


Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be affected on influence the results or interpretation of the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.


Duties of Reviewers

Peer review process

All of the journal’s content, apart from any editorial material that is clearly marked as such, is subjected to peer review process. Peer review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from expert reviewers in the fields which are not part of the journal’s editorial board. The following rules are to be considered, if one gets invited by the JHS's Editor-in-Chief to review a manuscript:

  1. Reviewing manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work
  2. Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary
  3. Providing all required information within established deadlines
  4. Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal
  5. Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review
  6. Reporting possible research misconducts
  7. Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons
  8. Treating the manuscript as a confidential document
  9. Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript
  10. Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors
  11. Not identifying themselves to authors
  12. Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer
  13. Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work
  14. Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge
  15. Writing review report in fluent English only
  16. Checking novelty, originality, scientific reliability, valuable contribution to the science, ethical aspects, appropriate grammar, punctuation and spelling, appropriate citation and probable scientific misconduct in the submitted article.
  17. Checking the structure of the article submitted and its accordance with the authors’ guidelines


Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer reviewers have an effective role in assistance the editor to make editorial decisions. They also can assist the authors to improve their papers throughout the editorial communications.



Each one of peer reviewers who feels unqualified to review a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse him/herself from the review process.



Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor and in accordance with the etical standards.


Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.


Future Steps

The "Journal of Hydraulic Structures" has already started to go through the procedure of getting membership of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). For the time being, we do follow its principles as much as possible, on how to deal with acts of misconduct thereby committing to investigate allegations of misconduct in order to ensure the integrity of research.