The Journal of Area Studies adheres to academic principles and ethical values in its publication policy. The publications of the journal should follow the national and international standards regarding ethical principles and values, in particular the standards determined by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and the principles determined in YÖK "Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive" (https://publicationethics.org/ https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Kurumsal/Mevzuat/Bilimsel-Arastirma-Ve-…). The publication request of the works that are found to be in violation of the research and publication ethics standards accepted in the article evaluation process will be rejected. If the contradiction in question is detected after the publication of the work, the work will be removed from the publication.
The principles stated below have been prepared based on the standards specified by COPE and YÖK.
Editor and Editorial Board Responsibilities
Editors have to take precautions against necessary unethical behaviors, especially intellectual property rights.
Editors evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors. He/She provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles for publication.
Editors are obliged to protect the personal information of authors and referees within the scope of ethical principles.
Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication. He/She must publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article. Editors should have no conflict of interest with respect to articles they reject/accept.
Responsibilities of the Referees
Referees (Reviewers) examine the articles submitted as to methodology, scope, and originality and decide whether they are appropriate for publication.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based only on scientific content, without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief, or political philosophy of the authors. They may not have any conflict of interest or competing interest with respect to the research, the authors, and/or the research funders.
Referee reports should be objective and moderate. Defamatory, derogatory, and accusatory statements must be avoided.
Referees should avoid superficial and ambiguous expressions in evaluation reports. For the evaluations that resulted negative, the missing points and imperfections of the article must be shown clearly and concretely.
Referees should not share their evaluations reports or information about the article with others and should not directly communicate with the authors without the permission of the editor.
Reviewers are responsible for the concealment of the articles they received and for not using the information attained from the reviewing process for personal interests.
Authors Responsibilities
The authors are responsible for the articles' conformity with scientific and ethical rules. Articles to be sent to the journal must be original, not previously published elsewhere, or not in the process of being evaluated in another journal for publication.
Authors must confirm that their submitted article is their own original work, which does not infringe the intellectual property rights of any other person or entity, and cannot be construed as plagiarizing any other published work, including their own previously published work (self- plagiarism). They should obtain permission or cite to reproduce any content from other sources.
All sources used in the article should be properly indicated in the references; copyright materials must be used in accordance with copy laws and agreements and the required permissions.
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
In studies requiring ethical committee permission, information about the permission (board name, date and issue number) should be included in the method section and on the first/last page of the article.
It should be made sure that other individuals shown as co-authors, have contributed to the research. Persons who do not have academic contributions should not be cited as additional authors.
During the evaluation phase, if the author(s) realizes that there is a mistake with their work, they should immediately contact the editor.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy
Authorship and Responsibility:
Under no circumstances should generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools be designated as authors or co-authors of a scholarly manuscript. The authors bear full responsibility for the content, accuracy, and originality of the submitted work. The utilization of AI tools does not absolve authors from their scientific, ethical, and intellectual responsibilities. The journal strictly prohibits the use of AI in generating fake authorship or falsifying identity.
Transparency and Declaration:
Any use of AI tools during the research, writing, or processes must be explicitly and transparently disclosed within the manuscript. This disclosure should be included in the "Methods" or "Acknowledgements" section, as appropriate. The statement must clearly specify the full names and version numbers of the AI tools used, alongside a detailed explanation of how and for what purposes these tools were employed.
Generative AI Usage Policies for Editors
Confidentiality and Intellectual Property Responsibility:
Editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, associated files, images, or any related information to AI tools. Safeguarding the confidentiality of submitted content and protecting the intellectual property rights of authors are fundamental responsibilities of editors.
Use of AI in the Editorial Evaluation Process:
Editors may utilize AI tools in specific aspects of the editorial workflow—such as initial eligibility screening or reviewer selection—only with the explicit approval of journal management. Any such use of AI must be transparently communicated to the authors.
Management of Suspected Misuse:
In cases of uncertainty or concern regarding the use of AI, editors should engage in transparent communication with the authors and, where appropriate, request supporting evidence. Matters requiring further scrutiny should be escalated to journal management for formal review.
Evaluation of Authors’ Declarations on AI Use:
Editors are expected to carefully review authors’ statements concerning the use of AI tools and request clarification or additional information when necessary. It is the editors’ responsibility to assess whether the declared use of AI complies with the journal’s established policies.
Staying Informed on Policy Developments:
Editors should remain informed about ongoing developments in generative AI technologies and ensure they are up to date with the journal’s evolving policies on AI usage.
Generative AI Usage Policies for Reviewers
Detection of AI Use:
Reviewers are encouraged to identify any potential undisclosed use of AI within the manuscripts they assess and to notify the editors if such cases are suspected. Nonetheless, any such assessments should rely on clear, objective evaluation standards.
Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibility:
Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts or any associated documents submitted for peer review to generative AI platforms under any circumstances. Doing so could compromise confidentiality and potentially infringe on intellectual property rights.Evaluation processes should be carried out using the reviewer’s own level of expertise and knowledge.
Evaluation Ethics:
Reviewers should assess authors' use of AI impartially, ensuring that personal opinions or biases do not interfere with the journal’s established policies. Any feedback or criticism related to the use of AI should be constructive and aligned with the journal’s official guidelines.
Permitted Areas of Use
Conceptual Diagrams and Explanatory Visuals:
Generative AI may be employed to depict theoretical ideas, conceptual frameworks, or processes visually. Any visuals created in this manner must faithfully represent the author’s own understanding and explanations.
Data Visualization:
Authors are welcome to utilize AI tools to enhance the visual presentation of their research data. These tools can be particularly helpful for improving the clarity and design of graphs, charts, and tables.
Illustrations and Representative Visuals:
AI-generated visuals may be used to create illustrative or symbolic representations that clarify and simplify complex ideas. Such visuals should support reader comprehension and must not distort or misrepresent the concepts being explained.
Restricted or Prohibited Areas of AI Use
Content Creation:
The use of AI to generate substantial sections of a scholarly manuscript—such as the abstract, introduction, literature review, or discussion—is deemed inappropriate. AI-generated content should be treated solely as preliminary drafts or suggestions and must be thoroughly reviewed, revised, and refined by the author(s) to ensure academic rigor and originality.
Generation and Interpretation of Research Results:
AI tools must not be employed to produce, report, or interpret research findings. The full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and validity of the data analysis and its interpretation lies exclusively with the author(s).
Reference Generation and Citation:
The use of AI tools to generate fabricated, unverifiable, or non-existent references is strictly prohibited. All cited sources must be verifiable, accurately referenced, and approved by the author(s), in accordance with scholarly standards.
Academic Writing and Argumentation:
The development of the article’s central arguments, theoretical contributions, and principal theses is the sole responsibility of the author(s). AI may serve only as a supplementary aid in the writing process and must not replace the author’s critical reasoning or original scholarly contribution.
Procedures in Case of Policy Violation
Failure to disclose the use of AI tools or using them in violation of the stated guidelines may result in the rejection of the manuscript during the review process. If a policy violation is identified after publication, corrective actions may include the retraction of the article or the issuance of a formal correction. Repeated or serious breaches of this policy may lead to the rejection of future submissions by the author(s) to the journal.