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). Acarological Studies 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 if they cannot make their assessment in the stated period sassessment in duration of peer review process, 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 stays 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

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 biannually 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.

All manuscripts submitted for publication in AS will be pre-reviewed by the editor. Manuscripts that fall outside the aims and scope of the journal, are inadequate in terms of language and writing, not original or not sufficient for the requirements of a scientific study, will be rejected or may have revisions requested at this initial stage.

After initial evaluation, the manuscript will be double blind, peer reviewed by at least two independent, expert referees. If there are inconsistencies between the referees, more reviewers will be asked to review the manuscript. The editor will decide on the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript according to the reports of these referees. However, a manuscript may be rejected without external review by the editor if it is considered unacceptable, for example, a manuscript will be rejected without peer review if it does not comply with the instructions for authors or if it is beyond the scope of the journal.

AS uses a plagiarism checker to detect potential plagiarism in the manuscript. If the editor, editorial board member or reviewer detects plagiarism at any stage of the evaluation process, the corresponding author will be immediately notified that the manuscript has been refused. 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 similarity between published papers and a new manuscript that cites them but the similarity has to be limited and the works have to be correctly referenced.

The names and e-mail addresses entered in the journal system DergiPark will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party. Responsibility for technical content and for protection of proprietary material rests solely with the author(s) and their organizations and is not the responsibility of the publisher, the journal or its editorial staff.

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.