his text presents, in a holistic manner, the core principles and practices of ANASAY Journal regarding publication ethics and publication processes.

1. Purpose and Basis

ANASAY Journal aims to ensure that scholarly knowledge is produced and published in line with the principles of accuracy, transparency, and accountability. The Journal places at the center of its publication policy the guidelines of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) for publication ethics and editorial best practices; the recommendations of the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) on authorship and contributorship responsibilities; the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) classification for declaring contribution roles; and the principles published by the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) for open access.

2. Ethical Principles
2.1. Ethical Principles for Authors
2.1.1. Responsibility, Originality, and Referencing

Author(s) submitting a manuscript to the Journal accept the legal and ethical responsibility for the text they submit. All information, data, visuals, and opinions used in the study must be appropriately cited and listed in the references. If a study has been derived from (thesis, project output, conference paper, etc.) or expanded from a previously produced work, this must be clearly stated.

2.1.2. Conflict of Interest and Funding

Author(s) are obliged to declare any existing or potential conflicts of interest related to the study. If financial support/grants/institutional support have been received for the study, the supporting institution and the form of support must be clearly indicated.

2.1.3. Research Ethics, Ethics Committee Approval, and Informed Consent

Research involving human participants, personal data, surveys, interviews, observations, experiments, or interventions must be conducted in accordance with applicable national legislation, institutional regulations, and internationally recognised principles of research ethics. Where ethics committee approval is required, the name of the committee, the date of approval, and the approval number must be stated in the Methods section and the Ethics Statement of the manuscript. The relevant approval document must be uploaded to the submission system.

Where ethics committee approval is not required, the authors must submit a reasoned “Declaration That Ethics Committee Approval Is Not Required.” The Editorial Office may request additional documents or explanations depending on the nature and design of the research.

Where informed consent is required, the manuscript must clearly state that informed consent was obtained from the participants. Permission from a legal representative must be obtained for research involving children, individuals with limited decision-making capacity, or other vulnerable groups. If identifiable personal information, photographs, or case details are to be published, separate consent for publication must be obtained and participant privacy must be protected.

Research involving animals must be conducted in accordance with the approval of the relevant ethics committee, applicable legislation, animal welfare principles, and relevant reporting standards.

Authors are responsible for obtaining all institutional and research permissions required for the use of archaeological materials, cultural heritage assets, archival documents, museum collections, protected sites, fieldwork data, and other materials subject to legal or institutional restrictions.

2.1.4. Plagiarism and Similarity Policy

All submissions to ANASAY are screened for similarity/text overlap during the editorial pre-check stage in accordance with the “Similarity Screening and Plagiarism Policy.”. A similarity report does not constitute a plagiarism decision on its own; the final assessment is made by the editors by taking into account the context of the manuscript and the rules of citation and quotation.
Tools Used
• Within the DergiPark infrastructure, a similarity report is obtained via İntihalnet in accordance with the system’s workflow (for every manuscript submitted to the journal).
• Authors are required to upload an iThenticate report as an additional file.
• When deemed necessary, the editors may conduct further screening using iThenticate (Crossref Similarity Check) and/or tools such as Turnitin.
General Thresholds (Editorial Pre-check Criteria)
(The overall similarity rate is evaluated excluding the reference list.)
• Overall similarity upper limit: 20%
• Single-source similarity upper limit: 3% (Editorial discretion may be applied in cases where unavoidable standard wording is required due to the nature of the field.)
Editorial Decision Options (When the Report Approaches or Exceeds 20%)
The similarity report is reviewed in terms of proper attribution and quotation, self-plagiarism, mandatory repetition of methods/standard expressions, and the adequacy of referencing. The following actions may be taken:
1. Return to the author for revision (e.g., improving citations, rewriting, clearly marking quotations, etc.)
2. Desk rejection by the editor (e.g., suspected ethical misconduct, extensive overlap, failure to provide appropriate references, etc.)
3. Referral to the Editorial Board/Ethics review (e.g., borderline cases, suspicions, repeated violations, etc.)
Serious Misconduct
In cases of clear plagiarism, fabricated/misleading citation, systematic self-plagiarism, or unauthorized use of images/tables, the editors may take action in line with COPE guidance, including rejection, notifying the relevant institution when appropriate, and initiating retraction/correction procedures.
Editorial Discretion
The stated percentages do not imply automatic acceptance or rejection. The editors reserve the right to request revisions or reject a manuscript whenever ethical concerns are identified, even if the similarity rate is low.

2.1.5. Multiple, Redundant, or Simultaneous Publication

The same study cannot be submitted simultaneously to more than one journal. Resubmitting a previously published study to another journal in a manner that substantially overlaps is unethical. Exceptions for secondary publication and conditions for overlapping publication are evaluated within the framework of ICMJE recommendations.

2.1.6. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

If artificial intelligence tools have been used in the writing of the text, the production of visuals/graphics, or data collection–analysis processes, author(s) must clearly state how they were used in the relevant section, in accordance with the principle of methodological transparency. Author(s) are fully responsible for the content, including parts generated by an AI tool. ANASAY adopts COPE’s approach on “Authorship and AI Tools” and requires the relevant declarations/forms to be uploaded to the system during submission.

2.1.7. Authorship Criteria and Contribution Statement

All individuals listed as authors in ANASAY must meet all authorship criteria recommended by the ICMJE. According to the ICMJE, authorship is based on the joint fulfillment of the following four conditions:

Substantial contributions to the conceptualization or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work.

Drafting the work or critically revising it for important intellectual content.

Final approval of the version to be published.

Agreeing to be accountable for all aspects of the work in order to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Within this framework, each author should not only assume responsibility for the parts to which they contributed, but should also be able, to a reasonable extent, to identify which parts of the work other authors are responsible for. This approach ensures that contributions are recognized accurately and appropriately and that the integrity of the scholarly record is maintained.

Authors may declare their individual contributions during submission using CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy). The contribution statement compiled by the corresponding author is expected to be approved by all authors. The contribution statement is published together with the final article and must accurately reflect contributions to the work.

Individuals who do not meet all four authorship criteria should not be included as authors; their contributions should be acknowledged transparently in an appropriate section of the article (e.g., Acknowledgements).

2.1.8. Authorship Order and Changes in Authorship

The author list and the order of authors must be approved by all authors before submission. After submission, the addition or removal of an author or a change in the order of authors may be considered only upon receipt of a signed statement from all authors, a clear explanation of the reason for the proposed change, and the approval of the Editor-in-Chief.

Changes in authorship are not normally permitted after peer review has been completed or the manuscript has been accepted for publication. In the event of an authorship dispute, ANASAY does not adjudicate between the parties. The editorial process may be suspended, and the authors’ institutions may be requested to investigate and resolve the matter.

Where appropriate, a correction, change in authorship, or retraction may be implemented following the outcome of an institutional investigation.

2.1.9. Suspicion of Ghost/Honorary/Gift Authorship and Procedure

If the editorial board detects indications of ghost, honorary/guest, or gift authorship, the submission may be suspended. In such cases, the relevant COPE flowcharts and authorship/contributorship policies are followed.

2.1.10. Language, Style, and Academic Respect

Falsification in the information and documents used; expressions that demean individuals/institutions; hate speech; or expressions that denigrate religious and national values are incompatible with academic publication ethics. Criticism must be evidence-based and expressed in an academic style.

2.1.11. Ethics Compliance Statement, Corrections, and Retraction

Articles must include a statement indicating compliance with “Research and Publication Ethics.” If author(s) notice a significant error or a suspicion of ethical misconduct in a published work, they are obliged to inform the editorial office immediately. Where necessary, cooperation with the Journal is essential in publishing corrections or in retraction processes.

2.2. Ethical Principles for Reviewers
2.2.1. Impartiality and Objectivity

Peer-review assessments are based on the intellectual content of the work. Personal criticism directed at the author is not appropriate. Manuscripts are evaluated according to their scholarly quality, independently of the authors’ identity characteristics.

2.2.2. Confidentiality and Prohibition of Use

Manuscripts sent to reviewers are confidential documents. They cannot be shared with third parties without editorial approval; the content of an unpublished work cannot be used in another work without the author’s permission.

2.2.3. Diligence, Reasoned Report, and Contribution to the Literature

Reviewers should present their critiques with clear, reasoned, and constructive arguments. Where deemed necessary, they should contribute to improving the quality of the manuscript by pointing to published studies relevant to the topic.

2.2.4. Timeliness and Reporting Ethical Misconduct

Reviewers must complete their evaluation within the allotted time; if this is not possible, they should inform the editor in a timely manner. Plagiarism, data manipulation, or other unethical situations detected during review must be reported to the editorial office immediately.

2.2.5. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must not upload manuscript files, supplementary materials, author information, editorial correspondence, or peer-review reports to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence systems. Such use may constitute a breach of manuscript confidentiality, intellectual property rights, and personal data protection obligations.

Peer review requires scholarly expertise, critical assessment, and individual accountability. Reviewers must therefore not use generative artificial intelligence tools to produce, wholly or partly, the scientific assessment or peer-review report.

Reviewers remain personally responsible and accountable for the accuracy, impartiality, scholarly quality, and integrity of their reports. Conventional tools used solely for spelling and grammar correction may be used only if manuscript confidentiality is fully preserved.

2.3. Ethical Principles for Editors

ANASAY editors act in accordance with COPE’s ethical duties and responsibilities for editors and within the framework of best practices.

2.3.1. Equality, Confidentiality, and Editorial Diligence

Submissions are taken into evaluation without any discrimination. The peer-review process is conducted confidentially. Editors have the authority to reject manuscripts they consider ethically or scientifically problematic or to request revisions.

2.3.2. Conflict of Interest and Reviewer Management

If there is a conflict of interest between the editor, author, and reviewer, the editor takes the necessary measures; ensures appropriate reviewer selection and process communication. The confidentiality of reviewer identities is protected.

2.3.3. Submissions by Editors and Editorial Board Members

Where an editor, editorial board member, or advisory board member is an author or co-author of a submission, that individual must not participate in any stage of the preliminary assessment, editor assignment, reviewer selection, correspondence, evaluation, or decision-making process.

The manuscript must be handled by an independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the authors. It must be evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers.

Submissions by editors and editorial board members are subject to the same scholarly, ethical, and editorial standards as all other submissions. Holding an editorial position in ANASAY does not provide priority, favourable treatment, or a guarantee of publication.

ANASAY seeks to minimise endogeny. In each of the two most recent issues, the proportion of research articles in which at least one author is an editor, an editorial board member, or a regular reviewer of the Journal must not exceed 25%.

2.3.4. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Editorial Processes

Editors must not upload submitted manuscripts, supplementary materials, peer-review reports, author information, editorial correspondence, or unpublished research data to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence systems.

Editorial evaluation and decision-making require human scholarly judgment and accountability. Generative artificial intelligence tools must not be used to make or replace editorial decisions, evaluate the scientific quality of a manuscript, or prepare editorial decisions without substantive human assessment.

If the Journal uses automated tools for technical screening, similarity checking, reference verification, or research-integrity assessment, the purpose and nature of such use must be disclosed. The results produced by automated tools must be reviewed by an authorised human editor. Final responsibility for all editorial decisions remains with the Editor-in-Chief or the authorised handling editor.

2.3.5. Allegations of Misconduct and Investigation

In cases that raise suspicion of ethical misconduct, editors conduct an objective and rigorous review by following COPE flowcharts. Once investigation processes are concluded, the parties are appropriately informed.

2.3.6. Protection of Intellectual Property

Editors are responsible for protecting the intellectual property rights of published content and for evaluating potential allegations of infringement.

2.3.7. Complaints and Appeals

Authors, reviewers, and readers may submit complaints or appeals concerning the editorial process, peer review, publication ethics, or published content to anasaydergisi@hotmail.com. Complaints and appeals must include a clear explanation and, where available, supporting documents or evidence.

The complaint or appeal is evaluated in accordance with COPE guidance by an editor who was not involved in the previous handling or decision-making process and who has no conflict of interest with the parties.

Where a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it is handled by an independent editorial board member who has not been involved in the matter.

Appeals must be based on evidence of a significant procedural error, scholarly assessment error, conflict of interest, or ethical concern. An appeal cannot be based solely on the fact that the editorial decision was unfavourable to the author.

The complainant is informed of the reasoned outcome following the evaluation. No retaliatory action may be taken against an author, reviewer, reader, or other individual who submits a complaint or reports a concern in good faith.

To report an unethical situation to the Journal: anasaydergisi@hotmail.com

3. Publication Policy

3.1. Pre-check

The corresponding author submits the application via the DergiPark online system. The manuscript must be prepared in accordance with the journal template and writing rules; manuscripts that do not comply are returned at the preliminary review stage. If deemed necessary during submission, the Copyright Form, AI Use Declaration Form, Statement That Ethics Committee Approval Is Not Required and/or Ethics Committee Document are uploaded to the system as signed PDFs.

3.2. Plagiarism Policy and Editorial Suitability

After similarity screening, manuscripts are evaluated academically and ethically by the editors and the preliminary screening editor. Manuscripts found not to comply with the Journal’s aims and scope, scholarly standards, or publication ethics are returned or rejected with a reasoned decision without being sent to peer review. A rejected manuscript is not reconsidered in the same form.

3.3. Withdrawal of the Manuscript

Authors may request the withdrawal of a manuscript by submitting a reasoned withdrawal request signed by all authors. Withdrawal requests made during the preliminary assessment stage are processed by the Editor-in-Chief.

Where peer review has already begun, the withdrawal request is evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief in consideration of the reasons provided, publication ethics, the work undertaken by reviewers and editors, and the integrity of the editorial record.

A withdrawal request may not be used to conceal simultaneous submission, plagiarism, an authorship dispute, data fabrication, ethical misconduct, or another violation of publication ethics. Where such a concern exists, the relevant ethical investigation may be completed before the withdrawal request is concluded.

The ordinary manuscript-withdrawal procedure does not apply to manuscripts that have been accepted or published. Corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or content removal in exceptional circumstances are handled under the Journal’s post-publication policies.

ANASAY does not charge authors any fee for manuscript submission, preliminary assessment, similarity checking, peer review, publication, or manuscript withdrawal.

3.4. Evaluation and Peer-Review Process

3.4.1. Languages of Publication

The Journal considers scholarly manuscripts written in Turkish and English. All submissions are evaluated according to the same scholarly, ethical, and editorial criteria, irrespective of the language of the manuscript or the geographical origin of the sources used. No manuscript is granted publication priority solely because it is written in English or uses archival sources held outside Türkiye.

Manuscripts must comply with academic writing conventions and the language rules applicable to the language in which they are written. Manuscripts whose language or style prevents a reliable scholarly assessment may be returned for language revision or rejected at the preliminary assessment stage.

3.4.2. Double-Blind Peer Review

The peer-review system is organized so that authors and reviewers cannot see each other’s identities. ANASAY adopts the double-blind peer-review principle. At the time of initial submission, author-identifying information must not appear in the manuscript file. After the manuscript is approved for publication, and before uploading the final version, the Name–Surname, Institutional Information (TR & ENG), e-mail, and ORCID ID must be provided in the template as specified.

3.4.3. External Reviewer Evaluation

To prevent conflicts of interest and to ensure author confidentiality, priority is given to an external peer-review process, and the general editorial policy is to appoint external reviewers as evaluators. Authors have no role in the selection of reviewers. If a manuscript falls within the expertise of ANASAY editorial board members, no more than one member of the editorial board may be appointed as a reviewer in that manuscript’s evaluation process.

3.4.4. Roles and Responsibilities of the Preliminary Screening Editor

The preliminary screening editor is responsible for the initial assessment of submissions before peer review in terms of compliance with the Journal’s editorial principles and standards. This stage constitutes the primary filtering step within the Journal’s scholarly evaluation process.

The preliminary screening editor verifies the submission’s formal compliance with the author guidelines; whether mandatory declarations and forms have been uploaded completely and correctly; whether the similarity rate complies with the thresholds specified by the Journal; and whether the study fits the Journal’s aims and scope. If revisions are required, a revision request is sent to the author, who must complete the necessary amendments within the specified period.

Where there are clear structural problems that cannot be remedied, the manuscript is evidently incompatible with the Journal’s aims and scope, mandatory documents have not been provided, or the similarity rate exceeds acceptable limits, the preliminary screening editor may return or reject the submission with reasons. This decision falls within the preliminary screening editor’s editorial authority and responsibility.

In multi-authored submissions, author information must be entered completely into the manuscript submission system. If author names have been entered incompletely, a request to correct the author information may be submitted only during the preliminary screening stage. Any subsequent addition, removal, or reordering of authors is handled in accordance with the Journal’s Authorship Order and Changes in Authorship Policy.

Preliminary screening procedures are generally completed within approximately 20 days, depending on the Journal’s workflow. After preliminary screening has been completed, an editor is assigned to the manuscript.

3.4.5. Duties and Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief holds ultimate responsibility for evaluating submissions within the editorial process in accordance with the principles of scientific quality, publication ethics, and the journal’s aims and scope. The Editor-in-Chief’s primary role is to conduct an editorial pre-evaluation before initiating peer review; where necessary, to issue an editorial rejection (desk reject) decision; or to direct the manuscript to peer review.

In this context, the Editor-in-Chief assesses the manuscript’s scientific competence in terms of topic and method, its alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, its potential original contribution, and the adequacy of its language and academic style. Following this initial evaluation, the manuscript may be editorially rejected/returned if deemed unsuitable for the journal, or—if deemed suitable—taken into peer review and reviewer assignment may be initiated.

3.4.6. Role of the Handling Editor/Section Editor

If the Journal has a handling editor/section editor practice, the Editor-in-Chief may forward the manuscript to the relevant section editor to ensure that appropriate reviewers are identified and that the peer-review process is conducted in line with the manuscript’s field. The Editor-in-Chief may monitor the process when necessary and ensure editorial coordination.

The Editor-in-Chief also ensures that the publication process is conducted in compliance with ethical principles, impartially, and free from conflicts of interest; ensures that editorial decisions are transparent and reasoned; and safeguards the integrity of peer review and the quality standards of published content. Depending on the Journal’s workflow, the editorial pre-evaluation process conducted by the Editor-in-Chief and/or coordinated with the editorial office or section editor may vary according to submission volume and the completion of technical checks; however, it is generally intended to be completed within approximately 20 days.

The Editor-in-Chief ensures that peer review is conducted in accordance with impartiality, scholarly competence, ethical principles, and process integrity. The process is planned and monitored in coordination with the section editor, where applicable. Every scholarly manuscript deemed suitable for peer review is sent to at least two independent external reviewers who have expertise directly relevant to the subject and no conflict of interest with the authors. Members of the editorial board, advisory board, and the Journal’s permanent editorial team are not counted as one of these minimum two independent external reviewers.

A third or additional reviewer may be appointed where the manuscript is interdisciplinary, several areas of expertise need to be represented, the reviewer reports conflict substantially, or the editor requires further scholarly assessment. Where the two reviewer reports differ clearly in recommending acceptance and rejection, the manuscript is sent to at least one third independent external reviewer before a decision is made.

Together with the section editor, the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for determining the reviewer pool, managing invitations, and administering the peer-review timetable. If a reviewer does not respond to an invitation, the invitation is renewed with an additional five-day response period. If an invitation is declined or a review report is not completed within the allotted period, a new reviewer is appointed to ensure that at least two independent external reviewer reports are obtained for every manuscript. Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within 25 days; an additional five-day extension may be granted.

To ensure that the process is conducted using standardised and comparable criteria, reviewers complete their evaluations using the reviewer evaluation form prepared by the ANASAY editorial board. In coordination with the section editor, the Editor-in-Chief monitors the timely completion of reviewer reports and oversees their proper incorporation into the editorial decision-making process and the completion of the evaluation in accordance with established procedures.

3.4.7. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript in terms of originality, contribution to the field, effectiveness of the methodology, compliance with ethical rules, holistic presentation of findings and conclusions, the level of engagement with sources and relevant literature, and style/language. Reviewers report their recommendations as: “Major Revision,” “Minor Revision,” “Reject,” or “Accept.”

3.4.8. Revision Process

If reviewers request a minor or major revision, the author is asked to complete the required checks and corrections and to re-upload the revised manuscript to the system within 20 days. Manuscripts that are not re-uploaded within this period are removed from the system. After the author makes the requested revisions, the revised manuscript is forwarded to the reviewers again. This cycle continues until a final decision is reached.

3.4.9. Editorial Decision and Publication

At least two independent external reviewer reports must be completed before a decision is made on any scholarly manuscript. Two positive reviewer reports do not result in automatic acceptance, and two negative reviewer reports do not result in automatic rejection without editorial assessment. Reviewer recommendations provide a scholarly basis for the editorial decision but do not replace it.

Where reviewer reports differ substantially, the manuscript is sent to at least one third independent external reviewer. The editor considers the reviewer reports, the author’s responses, the revisions made, the manuscript’s scholarly quality, originality, methodological adequacy, ethical compliance, and relevance to the Journal’s aims and scope. The reasoned final decision to accept, request revisions, or reject the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editor who has no conflict of interest. The final editorial decision and the relevant reviewer reports are communicated to the author through the submission system.

Language and style checks of accepted manuscripts are carried out by the relevant editors. The final version is sent to the layout editor for preparation of the pre-publication proof. Authors are asked to review the typeset proof for a final check before publication. All manuscripts are published online in their final form with a DOI and complete bibliographic metadata.

3.5. Editorial Independence

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is based on its scholarly quality, originality, methodological adequacy, ethical compliance, relevance to the Journal’s aims and scope, and the reports of independent reviewers.

The publisher, funding bodies, sponsors, advertisers, institutional authorities, or other external organisations may not interfere with decisions concerning the acceptance or rejection of individual manuscripts.

Financial support, institutional affiliation, personal relationships, commercial interests, or other external expectations must not influence reviewer selection, peer-review procedures, or editorial decisions.

The Editor-in-Chief holds final scholarly and ethical responsibility for editorial decisions. Where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, responsibility for the manuscript is transferred to an independent editor.

3.6. Special Issue Policy

Special issues must fall within the aims and scope of ANASAY and must be prepared under the overall responsibility and oversight of the Editor-in-Chief.

Manuscripts submitted to special issues are subject to the same editorial screening, ethical assessment, similarity checking, and independent external peer-review procedures as manuscripts submitted to regular issues.

The scholarly qualifications and subject expertise of guest editors are verified before appointment. The work of guest editors is supervised by the Editor-in-Chief or by an editorial board member specifically assigned for this purpose. Final responsibility for all acceptance and rejection decisions rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Where a guest editor is an author or co-author of a submission, the manuscript must be handled by an independent editor with no conflict of interest. Guest editors must not participate in reviewer selection, correspondence, evaluation, or decision-making concerning their own manuscripts.

Articles authored or co-authored by guest editors must not constitute more than 25% of the research articles published in the special issue.

Any financial or institutional support provided for a special issue must be disclosed transparently. Funders and supporting organisations cannot influence reviewer selection, peer review, or editorial decisions.

4. Archiving Policy

All content published in ANASAY is stored within the DergiPark infrastructure and digitally preserved through the LOCKSS system to ensure its long-term preservation and permanent accessibility.

Authors may deposit and publicly share the final published version of their articles in personal websites, institutional repositories, or subject-based open-access repositories without any embargo period. The deposited version must include a complete bibliographic citation to the original publication in ANASAY, a link to the article’s DOI, and the applicable CC BY-NC 4.0 license information.

The ANASAY LOCKSS manifest is available at:
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/anasay/lockss-manifest

5. Open Access Policy

ANASAY adopts an open access policy and supports the principles of the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI). According to BOAI, open access means that peer-reviewed scholarly literature is accessible over the internet without financial, legal, or technical barriers and can be accessed, read, downloaded, copied, distributed, printed, searched, linked to in full text, indexed, and used for any lawful purpose. ANASAY aims to make scholarly knowledge accessible to wider audiences and to increase scholarly visibility. Accordingly, articles published in the Journal are made available online free of charge.

All scholarly content published in ANASAY is made available through open access immediately upon publication, without any embargo period. Readers are not required to pay a fee or register with the system in order to access the full texts of articles.

Under the terms of the applicable Creative Commons licence, users may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, and process them as data using software.

Third-party materials used in an article that are not covered by the applicable open licence are identified separately. Permission from the relevant rights holder may be required for the reuse of such materials.

6. Licensing Policy

Since the first issue published in 2017, the Journal’s content has been licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 International Licence.

Under this licence, users may share, adapt, reproduce, and distribute the Journal’s content for non-commercial purposes, provided that appropriate reference is made to the original author and the Journal.

Information concerning the CC BY-NC 4.0 licence is clearly displayed on the Journal’s website, on the DergiPark record page of each article, and in the PDF full text of the published article. The name of the licence must include a link to the relevant Creative Commons licence page.

Third-party materials that are not covered by the open licence are separately identified in the article. Authors are responsible for obtaining the permissions required for the reuse of such materials.

7. Advertising Policy

ANASAY Journal does not accept advertisements on its website or in any of its print or digital publication platforms. Therefore, no advertising space is sold in the Journal, and applications for advertising are not considered.

8. Funding and Revenue Sources Policy

ANASAY’s publishing activities are sustained through resources provided by the publisher and through the voluntary scholarly contributions of editors and reviewers. The Journal receives no revenue from manuscript submission fees, article processing charges, publication fees, reader fees, subscriptions, advertising, reprints, the sale of special issues, or commercial sponsorship.

If the Journal receives institutional support, a grant, sponsorship, or another source of income in the future, this information will be disclosed openly on the Journal’s website. Funding and revenue sources cannot influence reviewer selection, editorial assessment, or publication decisions.

9. Direct Marketing Policy

Calls for papers and scholarly announcements issued on behalf of ANASAY must be accurate, restrained, and relevant to the Journal’s aims and scope. Misleading information, publication guarantees, persistent solicitation, or unsolicited mass communications are not used.

The publication of a call for papers does not mean that an invited submission is exempt from peer review or that its publication is guaranteed. All invited submissions are subject to the Journal’s standard editorial assessment and peer-review procedures.

10. Corrections, Retractions, Expressions of Concern, and Content Removal

Where an error is identified in a published work that does not invalidate its scholarly conclusions or the overall reliability of the article, a correction notice is published.

Where an error that seriously affects the reliability of the findings, data fabrication or falsification, plagiarism, redundant publication, a problem concerning ethics committee approval or participant consent, unauthorised use of material, or another serious breach of publication ethics is identified, a retraction notice is published in accordance with COPE guidance. Where necessary, an expression of concern may be published while an investigation is ongoing.

Corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern are linked bidirectionally to the original article. The reason for the action, the date, and the authority responsible for the decision are clearly stated in the notices.

The bibliographic record and full text of a retracted article remain accessible in order to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record. Each page of the article PDF is marked “Geri Çekildi/Retracted.”

Content may be removed from access only in exceptional circumstances, including a court order, a serious breach of personal data protection or privacy, a risk to personal safety, or another legal requirement. In such a case, a bibliographic record explaining the reason for the removal of the content is retained.

11. Disclaimer

The statements, comments, and evaluations contained in articles published in the Journal belong solely to the respective author(s) and do not reflect the views of the editors, editorial board, and/or publisher. The editors, editorial board, and publisher are not required to adopt or endorse the views expressed in the articles and cannot be held responsible for the claims, comments, or conclusions contained therein.

Authors are responsible for ensuring the scholarly accuracy of the work, maintaining research integrity, and ensuring that the views expressed in the text belong to the author(s). The Journal management provides a publication platform within the framework of peer-review and publication processes so that scholarly works may be shared with the academic community.

12. References and Links (For detailed information on the subject, see)

1. COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (PDF)
2 COPE – Authorship (Discussion document)
3. COPE – Ghost, guest or gift authorship in a submitted manuscript (Flowchart)
4. COPE – Handling changes to authorship lists (Position statement)
5. ICMJE – Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors
6. ICMJE Recommendations (PDF)
7 CRediT – Contributor Roles Taxonomy (NISO)
8. Budapest Open Access Initiative – Turkish translation