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 online hosting services and an editorial workflow management system for the journal, Acarological Studies.
• provides all the necessary technical conditions for an online journal management system and helps ensure the maintenance of the journal’s standards.
• 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 avoid infringement of the copyright of papers.
• should give feedback to the journal about how to improve the journal’s performance in all areas.
• should notify the chief editor via e-mail (acarolstud@gmail.com) of papers involving suspected ethical misconduct or containing errors or with important spelling errors.

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 always/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.