Research and Publication Ethics

1. Legal Basis and General Commitment

Our journal acts with a commitment to full compliance with national and international regulations regarding research and publication ethics. In this context, it complies with the provisions of the Press Law (a), the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (b), and the Directive on Scientific Research and Publication Ethics of Higher Education Institutions (c). In addition, it adopts the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (d) published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and conducts its publication processes in line with these principles.

  1. Press Law
  2. Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works
  3. Directive on Scientific Research and Publication Ethics of the Council of Higher Education
  4. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

 

Our journal takes the periodically updated COPE standards as a basis and remains committed to national and international principles of scientific research and publication ethics in all its processes. It regularly follows updates made in relevant legislation and international ethical frameworks and undertakes to make necessary adaptations.

2. Academic Style and Communication Ethics

Our journal does not allow scientific production to be determined by biased attitudes, nor does it allow scientific criticism to turn into a personal attack or a tool of mobbing. Within this scope, the editor, journal boards and staff, as well as authors and reviewers, are obliged to comply with the following communication principles:

  • Conflict of Interest: Undisclosed or concealed interests render the research and publication process biased and cast a shadow over scientific integrity. It is necessary to be aware of situations that may constitute a conflict of interest, to inform the parties about these situations, to ensure that the parties make explicit declarations in a manner that will not create a conflict of interest, and to manage the processes in a way that prevents conflicts of interest.
  • Academic Courtesy and Forms of Address: All correspondence and communication must be conducted within the framework of scientific and academic style and mutual respect. The parties are deemed to have undertaken not to depart from the rules of professional and ethical courtesy when addressing one another.
  • Prohibition of Insult and Degradation: The use of language that belittles, humiliates, mocks, or is aggressive toward the work or the individual in evaluation reports, editor letters, or author responses is prohibited. Criticism must be directed not at the individual but solely at the scientific content, methodology, and data.
  • Opposition to Psychological Harassment (Mobbing): The use of revision processes by reviewers or editors as a means of pressure on the author, making unreasonable and persistent intimidating demands that exceed scientific boundaries, is considered “academic mobbing.”
  • Objective and Constructive Criticism: Reviewers are expected to use a constructive language that encourages authors to improve their articles. Instead of abstract and judgmental expressions, concrete, evidence-based, constructive, and instructive explanations indicating where the deficiency originates should be provided.

The principles stated in this section are compatible with the International Ethical Publishing Principles published by COPE. Editors, reviewers, and authors may not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, language, religion, political opinion, institutional affiliation, or academic title in evaluation and communication processes. Evaluations are conducted solely on the basis of scientific content. All information and documents obtained in reviewer and editorial processes are subject to confidentiality. Contents obtained within the scope of the process may not be used for personal interest or shared with third parties.

3. Responsibilities of the Editor

  • The Editor is generally responsible for the implementation of ethical principles. Within this responsibility, it is essential to ensure editorial independence, to continuously develop the journal by preserving academic and scientific integrity, and to safeguard the quality of published articles and freedom of expression. The Editor is responsible for establishing communication with journal boards and staff, as well as authors, reviewers, and readers, in a way that nourishes and strengthens this framework. The Editor administers that processes in which these components are active participants are carried out within the framework of research and publication ethics principles.
  • The Editor bears overall responsibility for resolving all conflicts of interest arising before the journal boards, authors, and reviewers. All conflicts of interest that may arise before, during, and after the publication process fall within this responsibility. For this purpose, the Editor obtains the opinions and decisions of the relevant boards and responsible persons.
  • The Editor is obliged to inform and warn the parties in cases that violate research and publication ethics and, when necessary, to terminate the process.
  • The Editor ensures the identification of situations that may constitute a conflict of interest concerning, primarily, the Editor himself/herself, as well as individuals serving in the journal, authors, and reviewers. The Editor ensures that relevant notifications are made, that differences of opinion that may arise regarding attitudes that may create conflict are evaluated within the boards, and that the principle of “explicit declaration” is applied for every process and person in order to prevent potential conflicts of interest from harming scientific impartiality.
  • The Editor, while safeguarding the scientific and academic independence of the journal, is responsible for communication with the legal representative on behalf of the owner/association.
  • The Editor acts in accordance with the principle of full editorial independence in publication processes. The publisher/owner does not interfere in editorial decision-making processes.
  • The Editorial Board independently carries out reviewer appointments according to the criteria of scientific expertise and impartiality.
  • If the Editor has a direct or indirect conflict of interest regarding any work, he/she withdraws from the relevant evaluation process, and the process is conducted by the Editorial Board.

4. Responsibilities of the Editorial Board, Publication Board, and Managing Editor

  • The journal boards, primarily the Editor, are responsible for conducting all processes within the framework of transparency and accountability. The boards are obliged to act in accordance with the journal’s ethical principles and international publishing standards while fulfilling their duties. In this direction, they take collective decisions, make regulations, and implement them.
  • The names and institutional information of the members of the Editorial Board and Publication Board are published on the journal’s website in line with the principle of transparency.
  • All regulations and updates related to the journal are published on the official website of the journal.
  • An open call is announced before each new issue.
  • All manuscript submission, evaluation, and decision processes, as well as all correspondence carried out between journal officers, authors, and reviewers, are conducted and archived through the online journal system and the journal’s email address. Upon the request of indexing bodies and institutions regulating ethical principles, archived information and documents are openly shared with the relevant institutions.
  • The Publication Board is the decision-making body of the journal. It is essential that at least one Publication Board meeting be held before each issue and that collective decisions be taken with the participation of all members. In disputed matters, decisions are taken by majority vote. The Publication Board may establish working groups assigned to specific duties from among its members or assign its members to certain areas within the publication flow. However, the final decision-making authority regarding the proposals brought by these groups and individuals remains the Publication Board. The Publication Board is also responsible for the continuous development and enrichment of the journal and for the development of articles in this direction.
  • The Editors’ Board, consisting of the Editor and Associate Editors, is part of the Publication Board. This Board, formed from within the Publication Board, is the executive body responsible for implementing the decisions taken in the Publication Board. The Editors’ Board ensures the coordination of the publication process and communication between parties within and outside the journal.
  • The Managing Editor is responsible for the technical operation of the entire publication process, typesetting, and the online publication process. The Managing Editor does not take part in decision-making processes.
  • The Editors’ Board evaluates whether the manuscripts submitted to the journal comply with the general publication principles specified in the “Aims and Scope” and “Publication Principles and Processes.”
  • Members of the Publication Board prepare the Preliminary Evaluation Form for manuscripts submitted to the journal and found appropriate by the Editors’ Board. The form is prepared by one member and communicated to the author. The Preliminary Evaluation stage is the stage in which compliance with the “Writing and Referencing Rules” is checked, the similarity rate is controlled, reviewer suggestions are presented, and manuscripts are prepared for the peer review process. It is conducted as Open Author / Blind Reviewer (single blinded). In accordance with the principles of impartiality and neutrality, the identity of the member conducting the evaluation is kept confidential; the anonymity of the decision is preserved. When necessary, the Publication Board discusses and decides collectively.
  • The Editors’ Board is responsible for conducting the peer review processes. When necessary, they advance the process together with the relevant Publication Board member. Formal requirements are essential in the decision to be taken as a result of reviewer evaluations. At this stage, the Board cannot make an evaluation regarding the content. It may seek new reviewer evaluations for the purpose of forming a decision. At the end of the process, the decision taken is shared with the Publication Board.
  • A “Final Reading” of the accepted manuscripts to be prepared for publication is carried out by the Editors and, when necessary, by members of the Publication Board. At this stage, editing of the manuscripts is also carried out by Turkish and English language editors. In this process, the “Aims and Scope” and “Writing and Referencing Rules” are essential. Minor editorial revisions that do not change the substantive content of the manuscript are made directly; changes related to substantive content are made with the author’s approval. The copy ready for publication is shared with the author one last time before being sent to the typesetting stage.
  • Decision-Making Process of the Publication Board and Editors: Decisions are made solely on the basis of scientific validity, originality, and contribution to the field. The identity, title, institution, or social status of the author cannot influence the decision-making process.
  • In the evaluation of allegations of ethical violations, the guidelines and flowcharts published by COPE are taken as a basis. The review process is conducted fairly, impartially, and in accordance with the principle of confidentiality.

5. Responsibilities of Authors

  • Peer Review: Authors are aware that the types of manuscripts specified in the “Writing and Referencing Rules” are subject to peer review. The peer review process is conducted as blind reviewer / blind author.
  • Data Integrity and Transparency: In accordance with COPE and national regulations, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism must be avoided; all sources used must be fully cited; unused sources must not be included in the text.
  • Duplicate Publication and Self-Plagiarism: The author is obliged to declare all versions of the work that have been previously published, presented, or submitted in another format (thesis, paper, etc.) during the evaluation and publication stages and to indicate the points at which the new work differs from these versions. These declarations are included in a footnote in the introduction of the article.
  • Conflict of Interest and Explicit Declaration: It is essential that any academic, institutional, financial, or personal conflict of interest that may harm the scientific impartiality of the journal and the article be shared with the journal. In cases that may constitute a conflict of interest, explicit declaration is required.
  • Ethics Committee Approval: In field research, if Ethics Committee approval (committee name, date, number) is required, obtaining institutional research permission is mandatory.
  • Generative Artificial Intelligence Declaration and Original Added Value: Our journal does not prohibit the use of artificial intelligence but regulates it in light of certain principles. In order for the original added value created to be visible, the declaration of artificial intelligence use is essential. The use of artificial intelligence tools must be clearly stated in accordance with the principles in our journal’s “Generative Artificial Intelligence Usage Declaration Form for Authors.”
  • Author Declaration: The “Author Declaration” at the end of the manuscript must clearly include all declarations specified in the above headings.

6. Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Impartiality: Peer review processes are conducted according to the blind reviewer / blind author principles.
  • Conflict of Interest: Any relationship (financial, personal, or institutional) between the parties that may damage impartiality must be reported to the Editors’ Board.
  • Confidentiality and Impartiality: All information and documents in the process are confidential. Reviewers may not use authors’ ideas, data, or publications for their own interests, nor may they share them in any way.
  • Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence: Any use of artificial intelligence that may harm the principle of confidentiality and impartiality is not permitted. Reviewers may not upload the manuscript they evaluate, partially or wholly, to artificial intelligence tools and applications. The “Confidentiality and Ethical Undertaking Form for Reviewers” is essential regarding such and similar procedures. Reviewers are obliged to complete and submit this undertaking form to the journal.

7. Reporting Ethical Violations and Improper Conduct in Communication

Stakeholders who encounter unethical language, insult, or mobbing in correspondence may report the situation to the Editors’ Board via the journal’s email, together with concrete evidence. In addition to style and communication faults, all allegations of ethical violations such as plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, unjust authorship, duplicate publication, concealment of conflict of interest, misuse of the peer review process, or similar are evaluated within the same reporting mechanism. In examining allegations of ethical violations, the guidelines and flowcharts published by COPE are taken as a basis. These reports are examined with impartiality and confidentiality. As a result of the review, if deemed necessary, sanctions such as correction, termination of the article evaluation and publication process, retraction, public disclosure, or informing the relevant institutions may be applied.

If an ethical violation is detected later in a published work, the decision of retraction or correction is clearly announced in the journal archive.

The following forms are mandatorily obtained before article acceptance:

Author Declaration Form

Author Generative Artificial Intelligence Declaration Form

Reviewer Generative Artificial Intelligence Declaration Form