Ethical Principles
Acarological Studies (AS) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and expects all parties (authors, referees, editors and publisher) in the publishing process to bear the following ethical responsibilities.
In keeping with its commitment to best practices in academic publishing, AS strongly supports and adheres to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publication adopted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). AS utilises the process flow sheets developed by COPE in collaboration with Springer Nature when dealing with cases of fraudulent manipulation of the publication process.
Authors’ Responsibilities
The persons who participate in the design of studies, data collection or the analysis or interpretation of the data in a study, or meaningfully contribute to arrangement of the content, are described as authors. Only people who meet these criteria can be included in the list of authors of a paper.
Before you undertake any research you should familiarize yourself with the full meaning and application of ethics in research. There are numerous resources available, including the following link: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm
In addition, authors should:
- guarantee the accuracy and authenticity of the paper they submit.
- all agree to its submission and that the corresponding author has been authorized by co-authors to submit on their behalf. It should be confirmed that neither the manuscript nor its main content have already been published in any language (including full-texts of papers presented at scientific meetings) or under consideration for publication elsewhere.
- appropriately cite other authors or contributors or sources.
- only use copyrighted materials such as data collection tools, questionnaires, interview forms, tables, graphics, figures, maps and photos after obtaining written permission or making a copyright agreement; however, use without obtaining permission is allowed if the source is clear; for example, authors can download and use a map if the source is written on the map.
- verify whether a collection permit or receiving ethics committee approval is necessary in the country from which specimens originate, and allow for timely acquisition of such a permit.
- always comply with the privacy rights of human participants; authors should include a statement in their manuscript that informed consent was obtained to conduct experiments with human participants.
- deposit their molecular data in a public database (e.g., GenBank) and accession numbers should be provided in the manuscript.
- respond promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, evidence of the accuracy of their data, ethical approval documents, informed consent forms and copyright permissions.
- explain any financial relationship or conflict of interest that could potentially affect the findings or scientific conclusions of the study.
- clearly report all funding details required by their funding and grant-awarding bodies.
- not include people on the author list who provide help during the work such as writing, editing and technical assistance but who do not meet the criteria of authorship; they should be listed in the "Acknowledgments" section after obtaining their written permission.
- not use information that they personally obtain (conversation, correspondence or interviews with third parties) without written permission from the source.
- contact the editor as quickly as possible in order to withdraw the paper or correct as an erratum/errata when inaccurate information or scientific errors are found in the paper.
- act in accordance with all details stated in the copyright release form.
AS utilises the process flow sheet prepared by COPE in situations potentially related to ethical problems. Please click here to access the flow sheet prepared by the committee.
Reviewers’ Responsibilities
After initial evaluation, the manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent, expert referees. If there are substantial inconsistencies between the referees, more reviewers are asked to review the manuscript. In every stage of the evaluation process, the double-blind peer review process, in which the names of the referees and the authors are not disclosed, is used.
Reviewers should:
- immediately inform the editor whether they will review or decline to review when an invitation to review a manuscript is received.
- inform the editor and withdraw from the review process if the content of the submitted manuscript is outside their own scientific field or knowledge, or rif they cannot complete their assessment within the stated review period, or if there is any other reason that would disqualify them from being a reviewer.
- have no conflicts of interest related to the study, the authors and/or the research funder.
- act fairly and objectively and try to be constructive while maintaining scientific neutrality when evaluating manuscripts.
- not make personal criticisms of the authors during the evaluation process.
- make suggestions to the authors to improve the manuscript and to eliminate possible errors.
- indicate important papers not cited in the text or references cited in the text but not in the reference list.
- keep confidential all the information and ideas in the manuscript; they should not be shared with third parties, and not used for personal advantage. The confidentiality rule also covers people who decline to review.
- inform to the editor if there are any ethical problems, plagiarism concerns or copyright infringements in the study.
Reviewers must follow COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers prepared by the COPE. Please click here to access the guidelines.
Editors’ Responsibilities
Editors should facilitate the sharing of scientific output with the target readership group by meeting the needs of both readers and the authors. In addition, they should record the opinions and ideas of authors, readers, reviewers and members of the editorial board to help improve journal processes. Editors should also adhere to the highest standards and best practices in academic publishing, and reconsider the journal’s processes in the light of new information and circumstances.
At AS, the chief editor has overall responsibility and the section editors appointed by the chief editor manage the peer review processes of the relevant manuscripts on behalf of the chief editor. The section editors are responsible for deciding whether manuscripts are published in the journal. The section editors should also provide feedback on the journal’s performance and have input to the selection of editorial board members.
Editors should:
- have good knowledge of scientific English and publication ethics.
- actively conduct scientific research.
- have a broad knowledge of the science environment.
- not have personal, economic or political connections that would affect in any way their duties and responsibilities.
- carefully check the suitability of submitted manuscripts for the journal and conformity to the journal style for the manuscript.
- carefully check manuscripts for scientific authenticity, originality and conformity to the journal’s ethical standards.
- ensure that all information in submitted manuscripts is kept confidential until published.
- impartially and independently manage the peer review process.
- declare whether they have a conflict of interest or not, for example, when they are asked to manage the process of a manuscript submitted from their own institution.
- not allow any activities that constitute conflict of interest or prejudice between the authors and the reviewers.
- not make their publication decision entirely according to the reviewers’ suggestions; the editors should be aware that the reviewers are only advisers.
- be aware that they have ethical responsibility for their publication decision.
- not change their acceptance decision unless there is a serious problem with the manuscript, for example, when an ethics violation is detected.
- not change editorial decisions given in the previous editorial period, unless there is a serious problem in the manuscript.
- not hesitate to publish errata, amendments and declarations.
- defend freedom of expression.
- maintain ethical standards throughout all processes.
All editors are obliged to follow the guidelines in the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors developed by COPE. In this combined version of the documents, the mandatory Code of Conduct for Journal Editors standards are shown in regular script and with numbered clauses, and the more aspirational ‘Best Practice’ recommendations are shown in italics. In addition, you can find a handbook, which is the main reference guide for editors, translated to Turkish (click here) with the support of Trakya University and TÜBİTAK – ULAKBİM, and distributed to the editors of scientific journals in Türkiye.
Publisher’s Responsibilities
The publisher:
- provides all the necessary technical conditions for an online journal management system and helps ensure the maintenance of the journal’s standards.
- ensures that the content on the publisher's page is accurate and up to date.
- determines the fee policy.
- appoints and authorizes the Chief Editor.
- supports efforts to increase the journal’s international visibility.
- ensures that the highest standards and the best practices in academic publishing are maintained.
- provides the appropriate data for national and international indexes.
- delivers permanent accessibility and the preservation of scientific works, and ensures digital archiving of publications by partnering with other organizations.
Readers’ Responsibilities
AS expects readers to bear the following responsibilities, even if they are not in the publishing process.
Readers:
- must refrain from any action that would infringe the copyrights of published papers.
- are encouraged to provide feedback to the journal regarding potential improvements in all aspects of journal performance.
- should notify the Chief Editor (acarolstud@gmail.com) in cases where published papers are suspected of ethical misconduct, contain factual errors, or include significant typographical or spelling errors.
- are encouraged to share or disseminate published content responsibly, ensuring the integrity and proper attribution of the original work.
- are welcome to suggest new topics, special issues, or ideas that could enhance the scientific scope and outreach of the journal.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Policy
The primary purpose of the policy on the use artificial intelligence (AI) tools in academic processes is to preserve scientific accuracy, transparency and research ethics. This policy requires all stakeholders to use AI technologies exclusively in accordance with these principles and to disclose their use of such tools clearly when necessary.
Acarological Studies (AS) takes an ethical and responsible approach to the use of AI, placing human-centred values at the forefront. AS complies with the international standards of organisations such as The Council of Higher Education (YÖK), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Wiley and Springer Nature regarding the use of AI in research and publishing processes. AS tays up to date with the rapid developments in AI technologies and reserves the right to update its policies as necessary.
The following sections outline the responsibilities and principles relating to the use of AI for different roles.
For Authors
Use of AI-Generated Data or Visuals
AI-based translation tools may be used only for support. It is incumbent upon the authors to ensure the accuracy of the produced text and to verify its final version. Tables and analytical outputs generated by AI may be used provided they are not presented directly as real data. The publication of videos and images, including figures and micrographs, generated by AI is not permitted, except for those specifically used in a paper related to AI. The use of fabricated or synthetic data generated by AI or other means in the production of scientific results is strictly prohibited.
Authors’ Responsibility for Scientific Content and Accuracy
Content produced by AI tools may contain factual inaccuracies, fabricated references or erroneous data. Therefore, it is fully the authors’ responsibility to verify all AI-generated outputs, correct them when necessary and confirm their scientific appropriateness. AI-assisted content generation cannot replace scientific evaluation or scientific judgement.
Confidentiality and Personal Data Security
Authors should not upload confidential data, personal information and private data from human subjects or unpublished research results to general-purpose online AI models. When such content must be processed, only institution-approved, secured and closed AI systems can be used.
Plagiarism and Originality Responsibility
Any texts created by AI must be checked for plagiarism. Authors are responsible for ensuring the originality, proper attribution and ethical use of AI-assisted content. AI outputs may not be directly copied into a manuscript. The author must review them and make any necessary changes to ensure they fit with the scientific framework.
AI Systems Not Listed in Authors
AI tools cannot be listed as authors on a manuscript. All scientific content, evaluations and conclusions in the manuscript are the responsibility of the human authors. Because AI-generated content does not meet international authorship criteria, AI tools can’t be authors.
Disclosure of AI Use
If authors use AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Gemini) for content generation, editing, coding and analytical assistance, this must be clearly stated in an appropriate section of the manuscript (e.g., Methods) or in the section of ethics statement. The statement must include the tool name, version, purpose of use and usage rate. Disclosure is not required when AI tools are used solely for translation, simple language editing or cross-reference checking.
For Reviewers
Protection of Confidential Materials
Reviewers should not upload the manuscript under review —or any supplementary files, figures, tables, datasets or other confidential materials— to any AI system. This restriction applies to online large language models, cloud-based analytical tools and any platform that transmits content to external servers. In accordance with author confidentiality and double-blind review principles, no information obtained during peer review can be transferred to AI models.
Limited Use of AI When Preparing Review Reports
Reviewers can use AI tools solely to improve the linguistic clarity of the review report text that they themselves have written. AI tools cannot be used for scientific assessment, data interpretation or decision-making. Academic evaluations must rely entirely on the reviewer’s expertise.
Responsibility for Review Report Content
Suggestions generated by AI tools should not be accepted automatically; they must be checked and verified by the reviewer. Reviewers are responsible for the content, scientific accuracy and appropriateness of their reports. AI systems can’t replace the reviewer’s expert judgement.
Disclosure of AI Use in Review Reports
If a reviewer uses AI tools when preparing a review report, this should be disclosed to the editor when necessary.
Journal’s Right to Audit
If improper AI use is suspected in a review report, AS reserves the right to investigate, invalidate the report, appoint a new reviewer or request further clarification. These measures aim to ensure transparency and uphold ethical standards in the editorial process.
For Editors
Permissible Uses of AI Tools
Editors may use AI tools for mechanical tasks such as checking the suitability of manuscripts, reviewing formatting, conducting preliminary linguistic screening and drafting cover letters. However, scientific decisions such as desk rejection, returning manuscripts to authors, requesting revisions or acceptance/rejection decisions must rely solely on the editor’s academic judgement.
Insights produced through AI-assisted evaluations (e.g., potential plagiarism and linguistic issues) are only preliminary indicators. They cannot be used directly in decision-making without editor verification. AI tools are assistive in nature and cannot replace editorial expertise.
Data Storage and Confidentiality
When using AI, editors should adhere to the principles of transparency, accountability, and human oversight. Confidential editorial files, unpublished data and reviewer reports should not be uploaded to AI systems. Editors must ensure that any AI platform they use does not use uploaded information for training model or for third-party purposes. All systems must operate solely in accordance with confidentiality agreements and in non-training (closed) modes.
For Readers
Critical Evaluation
Readers should be aware that although AI-based analyses in scientific manuscripts have passed through editorial and peer review filters, it is still important to evaluate the results critically. AS may request disclosure statements from authors regarding AI contributions when necessary. Readers should be aware that AI may be used for formatting, statistical summarization or content refinement, but scientific data, interpretations and conclusions are solely the authors’ responsibility.
Respect for Confidentiality and Copyright
Readers should avoid uploading published papers or datasets in bulk to AI tools for reprocessing, as such actions may violate copyright and confidentiality. Before using published content for model training or commercial data generation, users must consider applicable licensing terms.
For Data Repositories and Libraries
AI-Assisted Metadata and Archival Processing
Data repositories and libraries can use AI tools for tasks such as metadata verification, content classification and archival processing. However, confidential or unpublished materials, as well as user-specific private data cannot be used for AI model training.
Institutional archives and libraries should offer licensing options to prevent papers, datasets or other uploaded materials from being used automatically in AI model training. All AI-based operations and outputs must be subject to human oversight and must not be finalized without human approval.
AI in the Context of Licensing and Copyright
Libraries must clearly and transparently communicate in their policy documents the legal boundaries of AI tools regarding access to licensed resources, text and data mining, bulk data extraction and commercial uses.
Responsible Use of AI-Based Search Engines
When providing AI-based search services, libraries must offer transparent information regarding the model’s training sources, data privacy safeguards, content filtering (e.g., risks of generating inaccurate or fabricated information —hallucinations) and reliability scoring.
Publication Policy
General Publication Policy
Acarological Studies (AS) is a peer-reviewed, international scientific journal that publishes and promotes research in acarology worldwide. It is a fully open access journal, published continuously by DergiPark for the “Turkish Academic Network and Information Center (ULAKBİM)”, a unit of “The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK)”. DergiPark provides online hosting services and an editorial workflow management system for academic journals published in Türkiye. The DergiPark project, undertaken by TÜBİTAK – ULAKBİM, is a public service in Türkiye whose mission is the web-based publication of academic journals and the operation of an online journal management system.
Open Access and Article Processing Charges
AS provides full open access to its publications according to the principle that providing scientific research to the public free of charge increases global information sharing. There is no publication fee in AS. The journal does not charge authors any fee for submitting, processing or open access publishing. All published papers in AS are freely available online.
Peer Review Model
Acarological Studies (AS) uses a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review process for research articles and all other manuscripts. In this model, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors.
The journal is committed to conducting peer review in a fair, impartial, confidential and independent manner. Editorial decisions are based on the scientific quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness and contribution of the manuscript, and are not influenced by the authors' institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, ethnicity, political or religious beliefs or other personal characteristics.
Initial Editorial Assessment
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before external peer review. The editor evaluates whether the manuscript is within the journal's scope, meets the basic scientific and ethical requirements, follows the journal's submission guidelines, and is sufficiently prepared for peer review.
Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential submission requirements, or have serious deficiencies in scientific quality or ethical compliance may be rejected at this stage without external peer review, or revisions may be requested at this initial stage.
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to qualified reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.
Selection and Assignment of Reviewers
Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise. Where necessary, additional reviewers may be invited, particularly when reviewer reports substantially disagree or when additional specialist expertise is required.
The journal prioritizes external reviewers who are independent of the journal's editorial team. As a general safeguard, at least two reviewers for each externally reviewed manuscript are selected from outside the journal's editorial board. In highly specialized cases, a member of the editorial board may be invited to provide an additional expert assessment; however, such an editorial-board assessment does not replace the required independent external reviews.
Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and suitability for the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to declare any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest before accepting an invitation. A reviewer will not be assigned to a manuscript where a conflict of interest could compromise or reasonably appear to compromise, the impartiality of the review.
Conflicts may include, but are not limited to, current employment at the same institution as an author, recent close collaboration, supervisory or mentoring relationships, personal or financial relationships, academic rivalry or other circumstances that may affect independent judgement.
Double-Anonymization and Protection of Author Identity
AS applies the double-anonymous peer review model throughout the external review process.
The main manuscript file submitted for peer review must be anonymized and must not contain information that directly or indirectly identifies the authors. Authors are therefore instructed to remove names, institutional affiliations, addresses, acknowledgements, identifying funding information, self-identifying statements and other information that could reasonably reveal their identity.
Before a manuscript is sent to reviewers, the editorial office checks the submitted files for information that could compromise anonymity. If identifying information is inadvertently included in the manuscript or supplementary files, the editorial office may anonymize or remove such information before peer review. This may include:
- author names and institutional affiliations,
- postal and e-mail addresses,
- acknowledgements that may identify the authors,
- author contribution statements containing author names,
- identifying funding or project information where disclosure would compromise anonymity,
- file properties or other embedded identifying information, where technically accessible,
- self-identifying statements or references that unnecessarily reveal the authors' identity.
Where necessary, author names in contribution statements or other identifying sections are replaced with neutral wording or temporarily anonymized wording. For example, an acknowledgement or other identifying statement may be replaced with a statement such as “This information has been anonymized for the purposes of double-anonymous peer review.”
Authors' identities remain available to the editorial office through the journal's manuscript management system but are not disclosed to reviewers during the peer review process.
Reviewers are also required to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and must not attempt to identify the authors. If a reviewer becomes aware of the likely identity of an author and believes that this creates a conflict of interest or may compromise impartiality, the reviewer must notify the editor and decline or discontinue the review when appropriate.
Editorial Board Members as Reviewers
Members of the editorial board may occasionally be invited to provide an expert assessment when their specific subject expertise is required. However, editorial board membership alone does not replace the requirement for independent external peer review.
At least two independent external reviewers are assigned to each manuscript requiring external peer review. Editorial board members who are involved in the editorial evaluation of a manuscript are not counted as substitutes for these independent external reviewers.
Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members
Editors and editorial board members may submit manuscripts to AS. Such manuscripts are subject to the same scientific and ethical standards as all other submissions.
To prevent editorial endogeneity and conflicts of interest, an editor or editorial board member who is an author or co-author of a manuscript must have no role in the editorial handling, reviewer selection, peer review, recommendation or final publication decision concerning that manuscript.
When an editor is an author or co-author, the manuscript is transferred to an independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the authors. The handling editor is responsible for managing the entire editorial process independently, including reviewer selection, communication with reviewers and authors, assessment of reviewer reports, and the recommendation or decision concerning the manuscript.
The submitting editor/author is not permitted—nor does the journal system allow—to access confidential reviewer reports, participate in editorial discussions, influence reviewer selection, communicate with reviewers, or make or influence any editorial decision concerning the manuscript.
The same procedure applies when a member of the editorial board submits a manuscript. If the assigned editor has any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest with the authors, the manuscript is reassigned to another independent editor.
The fact that an editor or editorial board member is an author is disclosed in the journal's internal editorial records or its editorial history. This procedure is designed to ensure that manuscripts authored by editors or editorial board members are handled independently and without preferential treatment.
Conflicts of Interest in the Editorial Process
AS requires editors, reviewers and authors to disclose actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest that could affect the integrity or impartiality of the publication process.
An editor must not handle a manuscript if they:
- are an author or co-author of the manuscript,
- work at the same institution as an author where this may create a conflict,
- have a close personal, professional, supervisory or collaborative relationship with an author,
- have a financial or other relationship that could influence the editorial decision,
- have a significant academic rivalry or other circumstance that could reasonably compromise impartiality.
When such a conflict exists, the manuscript is reassigned to another qualified editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.
If a conflict of interest is identified after the peer review process has begun, the journal may suspend the process, reassign the manuscript to an independent editor, and where necessary, appoint new reviewers to ensure that the review process remains independent.
Reviewers must likewise disclose any conflict of interest before accepting a review invitation. A reviewer with a relevant conflict will not be appointed, or will be removed from the process if the conflict is identified after the review has begun.
Editorial Decision-Making
The final editorial decision is made by the editor responsible for handling the manuscript (normally the assigned section editor), based on the reviewers' reports, the scientific merits of the manuscript, and the journal's editorial and ethical standards.
Reviewers provide expert advice; they do not make the final publication decision. The responsible editor evaluates the reviewers' recommendations independently and may request additional reviews where necessary, particularly when the reports are substantially inconsistent or insufficient to support a reliable decision.
For manuscripts authored by an editor or editorial board member, the independent handling editor alone manages the editorial decision-making process. The submitting editor/author has no authority or influence over the decision.
Confidentiality in Peer Review
All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence and other materials obtained during the peer review process are treated as confidential.
Reviewers must not share, reproduce, use or disclose information obtained through the peer review process. Reviewers must not contact authors directly about the manuscript without permission from the journal.
Editors and editorial staff are also responsible for protecting the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and reviewer identities throughout the editorial process.
Reviewer Anonymity
Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors during the double-anonymous peer review process. Reviewer reports are communicated to authors without identifying information.
Reviewers should not include their names, affiliations or other identifying information in their review reports. If identifying information is inadvertently included, the editorial office may remove it before forwarding the report to the authors.
The journal does not publish reviewer names or reviewer reports as part of the standard publication process.
Exceptions and Additional Review
The journal may request additional reviews when reviewer reports are contradictory, when specialist expertise is required or when an editor considers that the available reports are insufficient for a sound editorial decision.
Any such additional review remains subject to the same confidentiality, independence, conflict-of-interest and anonymity requirements.
Plagiarism and Similarity Screening
AS uses a plagiarism checker to detect potential plagiarism and inappropriate text overlap in submitted manuscripts. If the editor, an editorial board member or a reviewer detects suspected plagiarism or inappropriate text overlap at any stage of the evaluation process, the editorial process may be suspended and the corresponding author will be notified. The manuscript may be rejected depending on the nature and extent of the concern.
AS utilises the process flow sheets developed by COPE when dealing with cases of potential plagiarism in a submitted manuscript or a published article.
There is almost always some degree of similarity between a new manuscript and previously published papers that it cites. Similarity by itself does not constitute plagiarism; the extent and context of the similarity are considered, and the relevant works must be correctly referenced.
Personal Data Protection
AS respects the privacy of authors, reviewers, editors and other individuals involved in the publication process. Personal information collected through the DergiPark journal system is processed only for legitimate purposes related to manuscript submission, peer review, editorial management and publication.
For further information on the use and protection of personal data, please see the journal’s Privacy Statement.
