Licence and permissions
GUIDE TO AUTHORS
Please read and follow these instructions carefully; doing so will ensure that the publication of your manuscript is as rapid and efficient as
possible. The Publisher reserves the right to return manuscripts that are not prepared in accordance with these instructions.
Paper pages should not exceed (25) pages, printed in 14 font size, font type used for Simplified Arabic, and Times New Roman font for
The title of the research, the name of the researcher, his place of work, the abstract and the key words shall be written in both Arabic and
Tables and shapes should preferably be included in the correct places, including the necessary headings and illustrations, and the
dimensions of the forms and tables should not exceed the page size (11 cm).
Tables and figures in articles are clear and well configured within article content (are not just copied-pasted from Excel)
Submission of manuscripts
Authors should submit Word or rich-text files by the .
Licence and permissions
It is a condition of publication that authors grant an exclusive licence to Scientific Journal of Al-Kunooze University College. This ensures that requests from third parties to reproduce articles are handled efficiently and consistently, and will also allow the article to be as widely disseminated as possible. In assigning copyright, authors may use their own material in other publications, provided that the journal is acknowledged as the original place of publication, and Scientific Journal of Al-Kunooze University College is notified in writing and in advance.
Work submitted for publication must be original, previously unpublished, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere. If previously published figures, tables, or parts of text are to be included, the copyright-holder’s permission must have been obtained prior to submission.
All submissions should be accompanied by a cover letter that includes a brief overview of the manuscript and the corresponding and contacting author contact information including full name, e-mail address, phone number, and mailing address (corresponding author and contacting author). It should also specify the number of display items (figures and tables), the number of attachments (manuscript, figures, Supplementary Information if any), and their formats.
It must include a statement indicating that the article has not been published in another publication and is not being submitted simultaneously to another journal.
Preparation of the manuscript
General: Papers must be clearly written in English. If you would like additional help with the quality of your written English, including grammar, spelling, and language usage consult American Journal Expert (). The format of different types of articles is as under:
Format of Research Articles
Research articles present original research and address a clearly stated specific hypothesis or question. Papers should provide novel
approaches and new insights into the problem addressed. A research article should divide into the following headings:
- Title page
- Author's information
- Present address
- Materials and Methods
Email : journal1
@ kunoozu . edu . iq
Tables must be numbered with Arabic numerals in the order in which they are cited in the text. They should have a brief descriptive title
placed at the top. A short description is also accepted. Footnotes can be included below the table. Tables cannot duplicate data
contained in the text. Tables must be sent in Microsoft Word and have no links to the main document or other archives. Provide files at pproximately the correct size they are to be printed (letter size).
Figures should be supplied in an electronic format at a suitable size for printing with the following resolutions: 600 dots per inch (dpi) for line drawings and combinations; 300 dpi for greyscale and colour. Colour figures must be supplied in CMYK not RGB colours. Please ensure that the prepared electronic image files print at a legible size and are of a high quality for publication.
At the end of the paper, in the References section the literature should be arranged in alphabetical order. If they have the same author, they should be in chronological order.
In the text: References must be cited in the text mentioning the last name of the author and year between parentheses. In case of two authors, both should be mentioned. When there are three or more authors, mention only the first author followed by et al. When two or more references are cited in the same parenthesis, the authors should be in chronological order. And if they have the same year, they should be in alphabetical order. Moreover, if there is more than one reference of the same author and the same year, they should be indicated with letters.
All manuscripts will undergo some editorial modification, so it is important to check proofs carefully. PDF page proofs will be sent via e-
mail to the corresponding author for checking. To avoid delays in publication, proofs should be checked and returned within 48 hours.
Corrections should be returned by annotated PDF, e-mail or fax. Extensive changes to the text may be charged to the author.
Corrections are made if the publication record is seriously affected by the academic accuracy of published information. Where these
amendments concern peer-reviewed material, the correction will be published as a formal notice (erratum) in a subsequent issue.
Committee On Publishing Ethics
COPE Code of Conduct
General duties and responsibilities of Editors Editors should be
responsible for everything published in their journals. They should: • strive
to meet the needs of readers and authors; • constantly improve the journal; •
ensure the quality of the material they publish; • champion freedom of
expression; • maintain the integrity of the academic record; • preclude
business needs from compromising intellectual standards; • always be willing to
publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Relations with readers Readers should be informed about who has funded research
and on the role of the funders in the research Relations with authors Editors
should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they
publish, recognising that journals and sections within journals will have
different aims and standards. Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper
for publication should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality,
and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal. A
description of peer review processes should be published, and Editors should be
ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes. Journals
should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against Editorial decisions.
Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of
them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to
this code. Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless
serious problems are identified with the submission. New Editors should not
overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous Editor unless
serious problems are identified. Relations with reviewers Editors should
publish guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them. This
guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are
protected — unless they have an open review system that is declared to authors
and reviewers. The peer-review process Editors should have systems to ensure
that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under
review. Complaints Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE
flowchart. Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure
there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. This
mechanism should be made clear in the journal and should include information on
how to refer unresolved matters to COPE. Encouraging debate Cogent criticisms
of published work should be published unless Editors have convincing reasons
why they cannot be. Authors of criticised material should be given the
opportunity to respond.
Studies that challenge previous work published in the journal
should be given an especially sympathetic hearing. Studies reporting negative
results should not be excluded. Encouraging academic integrity Editors should
ensure that research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted
ethical guidelines. Editors should seek assurances that all research has been
approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional
review board). However, Editors should recognise that such approval does not
guarantee that the research is ethical. Protecting individual data Editors
should protect the confidentiality of individual information (e.g. that
obtained through the doctor–patient relationship). It is therefore almost
always necessary to obtain written informed consent from patients described in
case reports and for photographs of patients. It may be possible to publish
without explicit consent if the report is important to public health (or is in
some other way important); consent would be unusually burdensome to obtain; and
a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication (all three
conditions must be met). Pursuing misconduct Editors have a duty to act if they
suspect misconduct. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible
misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases. Editors should
first seek a response from those accused. If they are not satisfied with the
response, they should ask the relevant employers or some appropriate body
(perhaps a regulatory body) to investigate. Editors should follow the COPE
flowcharts where applicable (link to flowcharts). Editors should make all
reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted; if this
does not happen, Editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in
obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.
Ensuring the integrity of the academic record Whenever it is recognised that a
significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report has been
published, it must be corrected promptly and with due prominence. If, after an
appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, it should be
retracted. The retraction should be clearly identifiable to readers and
indexing systems. Relations with journal owners and publishers. The
relationship of Editors to publishers and owners is often complex but should in
each case be based firmly on the principle of Editorial independence.
Notwithstanding the economic and political realities of their journals, Editors
should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and
suitability for readers rather than for immediate financial or political gain.
Commercial considerations Editors should have declared policies on advertising
in relation to the content of the journal and on processes for publishing
supplements. Misleading advertisements must be refused, and Editors must be
willing to publish criticisms, according to the same criteria used for material
in the rest of the journal. Reprints should be published as they appear in the
journal unless a correction is to be added. Conflict of interest Editors should
have systems for managing their own conflicts of interest as well as those of
their staff, authors, reviewers and Editorial board members.
• A complaint may be referred to COPE by an author, reader,
reviewer, Editor or publisher. Cases may only be referred if the Editor/journal
in question is a member of COPE. • In the first instance complaints against an
Editor should be made directly to him or her in writing. If the complaint is
not resolved satisfactorily, it should be passed to the Editor’s overseeing
body or ombudsman where one exists. Only complaints that have been through the
journal’s complaint’s procedure can be referred to COPE. In referring a
complaint to COPE, all relevant correspondence should be enclosed. • COPE will
accept referrals made within six months of the journal completing its own
complaints procedure. COPE may consider cases outside this time period in
exceptional circumstances. • COPE will not consider complaints about the
substance (rather than the process) of Editorial decisions, or criticisms about
Editorial content. • COPE will not consider referrals that relate to incidents that
occurred before the publication of this code. When a complaint is referred to
COPE: 1. The referrer submits a complaint to the Administrator. 2. The COPE
Administrator confirms that the complaint is: a. against a member of COPE b.
within the remit of the Code c. unresolved after passing properly through the
journal’s complaints procedure d. relating to an incident that occurred after
this code came into force (1 January 2005) 3. The referrer is asked to provide
evidence, with all relevant supporting documents including correspondence
relating to the hearing of the complaint by the journal, in confidence to the
Chair of COPE. 4. The Chair of COPE informs the Editor of the journal in
question that the complaint has been referred to COPE. 5. A number of potential
scenarios may occur: a.The Editor refuses to cooperate, in which case, the
Chair of COPE informs the referrer and the owner of the journal. b.The Editor
replies stating his/her case: i. The Chair of COPE, with one other nominated
Council member, decides that the journal has dealt with the complaint
satisfactorily and advises the referrer and Editor accordingly. ii. The Chair
of COPE, with one other nominated Council member, decides that there is a need
for further investigation, advises the referrer and Editor accordingly, and
reports this to an appropriately constituted sub committee of the COPE Council.
6. The sub-committee considering the complaint will consist of at least the
Chair and three other members of COPE Council. Two of the members must not be
Editors. None of the sub-committee members should belong to the same publishing
group as the Editor in question. 7. If the Chair belongs to the same publishing
group as the Editor in question, s/he will appoint an appropriate deputy to
oversee the proceedings. 8. When the case comes to the sub-committee, the
sub-committee either: a. dismisses it, and the referrer and Editor are so
advised and given reasons b. reaches the view that a breach of the code has
taken place. When the sub-committee is of the view that a breach of the code
has taken place it presents a report to the COPE Council explaining the nature
of the breach and recommending a course of action. 9. The COPE Council
considers the report and may modify the recommendations. The Council informs
the referrer, the Editor and the owner of its final recommendations. These
recommendations may include: a.that the Editor apologise to the original
complainant; b.that the Editor publish a statement from COPE in his/her
journal; c. that the journal improve its processes; d.that the Editor resigns
from COPE membership for a period of time; or e. any other action which the
COPE Council feels is appropriate given the circumstances of the case. Appeals
procedure Appeals against a COPE recommendation may be made to COPE’s
ombudsperson, contact details for whom will be provided on request.