Policies

Publication Ethics

Erevna Journal is committed to maintaining high standards of publication ethics, academic integrity, transparency, and accountability throughout the publication process. The journal expects authors, editors, reviewers, and other contributors to adhere to established ethical principles and responsible scholarly practices. The following policies guide authorship, editorial decision-making, research transparency, intellectual property, and the correction of the scholarly record.

Authorship and Contributorship

Erevna Journal recognizes authorship as an acknowledgment of significant intellectual contributions to scholarly work. Individuals listed as authors must have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the study, data collection, analysis or interpretation, or the development of the manuscript. Authors should also participate in drafting or critically revising the manuscript, approve the final version, and accept accountability for the integrity and accuracy of their contributions.

All authors must approve the manuscript before submission. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all eligible contributors are appropriately acknowledged, that all authors agree to the submission, and that the order of authorship is mutually agreed upon before publication. Individuals who have contributed to the work but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged appropriately, with their permission.

Gift, honorary, ghost, and other forms of inappropriate authorship are not permitted. Any request to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must include a written justification and the agreement of all affected authors. Erevna Journal reserves the right to investigate suspected authorship misconduct and take appropriate editorial action.

Complaints and Appeals

Erevna Journal provides a transparent procedure for handling complaints and appeals relating to editorial decisions, peer review, publication procedures, research integrity, and alleged misconduct. Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a reasoned appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, explaining the specific grounds for reconsideration and providing relevant supporting evidence.

Appeals must address substantive concerns, such as factual errors, significant misunderstandings of the manuscript, or procedural irregularities. Disagreement with an editorial decision alone does not guarantee reconsideration. Where appropriate, an appeal may be reviewed by an editor who was not directly involved in the original decision or by an independent expert.