Journal of Ankara Bar Association aims to comply with the guidelines, policies, core practices, and recommendations established by various organizations, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (joint statement by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME). These guidelines are designed to promote transparency, integrity, and best practices in scholarly publishing.

Ethics Committee Approval

Our journal requires that studies conducted in fields necessitating ethics committee approval must have obtained the relevant ethics committee decision.

Accordingly, authors must indicate the date and reference number of the ethics committee approval on the first or last page of the manuscript.

In line with the regulations introduced by TR Dizin (ULAKBİM) as of 2020, studies lacking ethics committee approval are not considered for evaluation in our journal.

Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

Editors may consider issuing a correction if minor errors that do not affect the findings, interpretations, or conclusions of a published article are identified.

In cases of major errors or violations that invalidate the findings and conclusions, editors should consider retracting the article.

COPE guidelines are followed with regard to corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern.

Conflicts of Interest

Our journal guarantees that the publication process is completed independently and impartially, taking into account any conflicts of interest among authors, reviewers, and editors.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

The use of artificial intelligence in submitted manuscripts is permissible for processes that do not affect the originality of the work, such as literature review or language editing.

For manuscripts involving the use of artificial intelligence, authors are expected to inform the journal at the submission stage. All responsibility regarding the use of artificial intelligence rests with the authors.

Ethical Responsibilities of the Editorial Board

• Editors are obliged to perform their duties objectively, impartially, and without prejudice, and they support authors’ freedom of expression.
• Editors must act in accordance with confidentiality requirements and ensure that the peer review process is conducted under a double-blind system, without disclosing authors to reviewers or reviewers to authors.
• Editors should assign manuscripts to reviewers whose expertise is appropriate to the subject matter, ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated by qualified experts.
• Editors are responsible for requesting that reviewers declare the absence of any conflicts of interest prior to reviewing a manuscript.
• Editors must provide reviewers with all necessary information regarding the review process and expectations.
• Editors are responsible for carefully examining complaints submitted by authors, reviewers, or readers and responding in a clear and informative manner.
• In cases of editorial rejection, editors must communicate the reasons for the decision to the authors in a clear and unbiased manner.

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

• All sources used in the manuscript (authors, online resources, personal communications, etc.) must be properly and accurately cited.
• Authors must declare that the manuscript has not been previously published and is not under consideration elsewhere, and must complete the Copyright Transfer Form.
• Individuals who have not contributed intellectually to the manuscript should not be listed as authors.
• Any conflicts of interest related to the submitted manuscript must be disclosed and explained.
• Authors may be requested to submit raw data during the review process; in such cases, they are expected to share their data with the editorial board.
• If authors identify an error in their work, they must inform the editor and editorial board and cooperate in the correction or retraction process.

Authors are advised to avoid the following forms of plagiarism and ethical misconduct:

• Plagiarism: Presenting others’ original ideas, methods, data, or works, in whole or in part, as one’s own without proper citation in accordance with academic standards.
• Citation Manipulation: Artificially inflating citation counts through excessive self-citation, overuse of citations from the same journal, or citation stacking.
• Self-Plagiarism: Reusing portions of one’s own previously published work without proper citation, which constitutes a form of plagiarism.
• Slicing: Publishing multiple papers derived from a single study using the same dataset, hypotheses, and methods.
• Fabrication: Creating data that are not supported by actual research or experiments, constituting a serious violation of research integrity.
• Falsification/Data Manipulation: Altering data, including images or outliers, to misrepresent or distort findings.

In cases of suspected ethical violations, the Editorial Board will follow COPE guidelines to ensure that concerns are addressed in a fair, transparent, and consistent manner.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

• All manuscripts submitted to the Journal are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process, whereby authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other to ensure an unbiased and independent evaluation.
• Reviewers should only accept manuscripts within their field of expertise. If they do not feel competent to evaluate a submission, they must decline the review.
• Confidentiality is essential. Reviewers must not discuss manuscripts with third parties. However, if deemed necessary, and with the editor’s approval, reviewers’ comments may be shared with other reviewers of the same manuscript.
• Reviewers must decline to review in cases of conflict of interest and inform the editor if such conflicts are discovered later.
• Reviews must be conducted objectively and impartially. Reviewers are expected to submit their evaluations within the specified timeframe or inform the editor promptly if they are unable to do so.
• Reviewers must complete the Review Evaluation Form and refrain from including identifying information to preserve the integrity of the double-blind process. They should clearly state their decision and the reasoning behind it.
• Reviewers must use a respectful, constructive, and scientific tone in their reports and avoid offensive, disrespectful, or subjective personal remarks. If such language is detected, editors may request revisions.
• Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the allocated time and adhere to the ethical responsibilities outlined herein.

Post-Publication Corrections and Retraction Policy

All post-publication correction requests are subject to editorial review. The Editorial Board evaluates the necessity and appropriateness of corrections based on the nature of the error, its impact on the article, and supporting evidence. If approved, corrections are implemented in the journal archive. The journal follows COPE guidelines.

Retraction decisions are made in cases of serious ethical violations, including plagiarism, data fabrication, fraudulent authorship, or publication without co-author consent. Retraction notices include the following elements:

• An official retraction notice titled “Retraction: [Article Title]”, published in a subsequent issue.
• A watermark stating “Retracted” on the PDF version of the original article.