PUBLICATION ETHICS

Amphora follows certain ethical rules in order to preserve the quality of scientific publications, maintain public confidence in scientific findings, and protect the reputation of original ideas. Amphora is affiliated with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and aims to adhere as closely as possible to its codes of conduct and implementation guidelines (Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors).

Authors who submit their manuscripts to Amphora confirm that their work is original and has not been published elsewhere or is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Authors also confirm that the submitted articles have not been partially or entirely copied from other articles or studies and do not constitute plagiarism. Authors confirm that they have no potential conflicts of interest or partial benefits related to their articles.

Amphora will check all submitted studies for plagiarism before publication. If plagiarism is detected at any stage of the publication process, the author(s) will be instructed to rewrite the study. Each article will be screened by Turnitin in order to prevent plagiarism. If plagiarism is detected in 30% of any study, the article will be rejected and an information letter will be sent to the author. We strongly recommend that authors check the content of their articles using free online software before submitting them for publication.

Amphora makes the necessary arrangements to ensure the impartial evaluation of submitted studies and to prevent actual or potential conflicts of interest between authors and reviewers.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS

Publication Responsibilities and Independence
All Amphora editors and assistant editors are independent in their evaluations and decisions regarding the journal. No external and/or internal factor may influence their decisions. If editors are subjected to any positive and/or negative restriction, they reserve the right to take legal action against those involved in the restriction. On the other hand, editors are responsible for the decisions they make in the journal. The journal editor is the sole person responsible for the content of the journal and its timely publication.

Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
Journal editors and assistants are prohibited from sharing submitted studies with third parties outside the editorial board and/or using them themselves. If there is a conflict of interest in terms of cooperation or competition between an editor and an author or the institution where the author works, another member of the Editorial Board is assigned to manage the evaluation process.

Publication Decisions

Editors ensure the peer review of submitted articles by appointing at least two reviewers who are experts in the field. The editor is responsible for the decision to publish an article, taking into consideration the importance of the studies for researchers and readers, reviewer reports, plagiarism, and copyright infringement as legal matters. The editor may discuss the decision with other assistant editors and reviewers.

Peer Review and Evaluation Processes
Method of Article Evaluation by Reviewers
All articles submitted to the journal are scientifically evaluated through the double-blind review method.
Preliminary Evaluation
Articles submitted to the Journal for publication are checked by the editor in terms of purpose, scope, method, and writing principles.
If the editor identifies any deficiency or problem in the article text or files, the article is returned to the author for completion of these deficiencies. The reason for returning the article and the deadline by which it must be resubmitted are explained to the author.
Publications that successfully pass the editor’s review are assigned to field editors for scientific evaluation and examination. Field editors send the article to 2 different reviewers for evaluation.
Invitation to Reviewers
The response period for an invitation sent to a reviewer to conduct an evaluation is 7 days, while reviewers who accept the invitation are given 15 days to complete the evaluation.
The 15-day period during which the reviewer evaluates the publication begins upon acceptance and confirmation of the invitation.
If the reviewer cannot evaluate the study within the specified period, an additional 7 days are granted. If the reviewer still does not evaluate the article within this period, a new reviewer is invited by the field editor.
Reviewers are selected from the journal’s reviewer list or the DergiPark system according to the subject of the article. For this purpose, reviewers holding at least a doctoral degree and conducting studies related to the subject of the journal are searched through academic search websites and invited.
Reviewer Evaluation Method
The reviewer is expected to evaluate only studies within their own subject area in accordance with the publication principles.
The reviewer conducts the evaluation through the article evaluation form sent by the field editor.
The reviewer is expected not only to answer the evaluation criteria with yes or no, but also to elaborate on negative opinions and explain the reasons for them.
A reviewer who rejects the article is expected to provide detailed explanations that will guide the author.
The reviewer may use the "track changes" feature on the article file to elaborate on the opinions stated in the reviewer evaluation form.
Evaluation of the Status of the Article
If two different reviewers state that the article is "Suitable for Publication," the article is published in the journal.
If two different reviewers state that the article is "Not Suitable for Publication," the article is rejected.
If one reviewer accepts the article and the other reviewer requests major or minor revisions, the study is returned to the author and the author is asked to make the necessary changes within a specified period.
The revised study that the reviewer wishes to see again is resubmitted to the reviewer by the field editor. At this stage, the reviewer fills out the evaluation form again. If the reviewer’s decision is positive, the article becomes eligible for publication in the journal. If the reviewer’s decision is negative, the following provision applies.
If one reviewer gives a positive opinion and the other gives a negative opinion during the evaluation process, the article is sent to a third reviewer. The opinion of this reviewer determines whether the article will be published.
After the Evaluation Process
All evaluation processes and reviewer reports are kept in the journal archive.

Important Reminders for Authors Who Will Submit Articles to the Journal

1. When submitting an article;
   a. Click the "Submit Article" button on the homepage.
   b. Enter the required information in Turkish and English in the article metadata.
   c. Fill in all information regarding the authors.
   d. Upload all files (you can access the journal template from this page).
   e. Provide additional information (supporting institution, project number, and acknowledgements, if any) and your reviewer suggestions, and proceed to the next step.
   f. At the final stage, after reading the explanations and approving your declaration, complete the submission process by clicking the "Submit" button.
2. The text and references of the article must comply with the writing rules (APA6).
3. The similarity report must be uploaded to the system by the author(s).
4. In accordance with the criteria announced by TR Dizin, Ethics Committee Approval has been required for studies to be published since 2020. It is recommended that the explanations provided by TR Dizin on this matter be carefully reviewed.
5. Amphora publishes two issues per year (June and December).
6. The evaluation process of studies uploaded to the journal may take between 4-8 months.
7. The journal management (editor, scientific board, editorial board) may decide whether an article will be taken into the evaluation process.
8. Full texts of papers presented at symposiums may be published in the journal. The normal article process is also applied to articles in this situation.