Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

This 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. 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.


2.1.4. 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.

2.1.5. 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.

2.1.6. 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).

2.1.7. 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.

2.1.8. 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.

2.1.9. 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.

2.3. 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. 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.

2.3.4. Protection of Intellectual Property

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

2.3.5. Complaints and Appeals

Complaints and appeals from authors, reviewers, or readers are handled on the basis of scholarly content and in line with COPE guidelines. The final decision is made by the editor-in-chief.

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 editors and the pre-reviewer. Manuscripts found not to be compatible with the Journal’s scope, theme, and scholarly publication criteria are returned with justification without being sent to peer review. Returned/rejected manuscripts are not reconsidered.

3.3. Withdrawal of the Manuscript

The author may withdraw the manuscript only at the pre-check stage. Manuscripts that have been sent to reviewers, accepted, or assigned a DOI cannot be withdrawn. In withdrawal requests after the pre-check stage, restrictive practices may be applied in order to protect the Journal’s publication processes.


3.4. Evaluation and Peer-Review Process
3.4.1. Our journal considers scientific studies written in Turkish and English. However, manuscripts submitted in English and based on foreign archival sources will be given publication priority at the production stage, provided that they successfully complete the peer-review process. If an English manuscript is not prepared in an academic style and in accordance with language rules, it will be rejected at the preliminary screening stage. Such manuscripts must be prepared with a professional approach.

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 the unit responsible for the initial assessment of submissions before they are taken into peer review, in terms of compliance with editorial principles and standards. This stage constitutes the primary filtering step within the journal’s evaluation process in line with the principles of scholarly publishing.The preliminary screening editor verifies: the submission’s formal compliance with the author guidelines; whether the mandatory declarations and forms have been uploaded completely and correctly; whether the similarity (plagiarism) rate is below 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, and the author is asked to complete the necessary amendments within the specified period.If, however, there are clear structural problems that cannot be remedied; if the manuscript is evidently incompatible with the journal’s aims and scope; if mandatory documents are not provided; or if the similarity rate exceeds acceptable limits, the preliminary screening editor may decide to reject or return the manuscript. 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 were entered incompletely, a request may be submitted to the journal only during the preliminary screening stage to add missing author information; adding a new author to manuscripts under peer review or already accepted is not permitted. If insistence continues, the manuscript may be removed from the editorial process and returned, even if it has been accepted.Preliminary screening procedures are generally completed within approximately 20 days, depending on the journal’s workflow. After the preliminary screening is 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.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 also closely 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, in an impartial manner, and free from conflicts of interest; safeguards that editorial decisions are transparent and well-reasoned; and secures the integrity of peer review and the quality standards of published content. Depending on the journal’s workflow, the editorial pre-evaluation process carried out by the Editor-in-Chief (and/or coordinated with the editorial office/section editor) may vary according to submission volume and completion of technical checks; however, it is generally aimed to be finalized within approximately 20 days. The Editor-in-Chief ensures that the peer-review process is carried out within the framework of impartiality, scientific competence, compliance with ethical principles, and process integrity. This process is planned and monitored in coordination with the section editor (if any) within the journal’s editorial workflow. Manuscripts deemed suitable for peer review are sent—within at most 20 days—to at least three reviewers considered to be experts directly related to the subject, for evaluation and reporting. If the manuscript is interdisciplinary, four or more reviewers may be appointed if deemed appropriate by the Editor-in-Chief, in order to represent disciplinary diversity and increase the depth of evaluation. Together with the section editor, the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for determining the reviewer pool, managing invitations, and operating the peer-review timeline. If reviewers do not respond to the invitation, the invitation is re-sent, allowing an additional 5-day response period. If the invitation is not accepted by one or two reviewers, invitations are sent to new reviewers to ensure that the manuscript can be evaluated by at least three reviewers, and the process continues without interruption. If reviewers do not submit their evaluation reports within 25 days, an additional 5-day extension is granted. To ensure that the process is conducted using standardized and comparable criteria, reviewers complete their evaluations via the reviewer evaluation form prepared by the ANASAY editorial board. In coordination with the section editor, the Editor-in-Chief follows up to ensure timely completion of reviewer reports and oversees the proper transfer of reports into the editorial decision mechanism and the completion of the evaluation process in accordance with procedure.

3.4.6. (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.”
3.4.7.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.

3.4.8.As a result of the evaluations, a manuscript is accepted if at least two reviewers decide that it is “publishable,” and it is placed in the most suitable order for publication. If two reviewer evaluations are negative, the manuscript is rejected and returned to the author together with the relevant reports. The final decision regarding the publication date is made by the Managing Editor. Language and style checks of accepted manuscripts are carried out by the relevant editors. The final version of accepted manuscripts is sent to the layout editor for preparation of the pre-publication proof. Authors are asked to review the typeset proofs of their manuscripts for a final check prior to publication. All manuscripts are published online as PDF files in their final form after receiving a DOI number, and they are indexed in the relevant databases accordingly.

4. Archiving Policy

To ensure preservation and permanent access to all works published in ANASAY, content is stored within the DergiPark infrastructure. Authors are also advised to archive the final versions of their articles in institutional/thematic repositories compatible with open archive standards. Our Journal uses the LOCKSS system. Authors are advised to store the final versions of their articles in open repositories that comply with Open Archives Initiative standards.

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 via the internet without financial, legal, and technical barriers; can be read, downloaded, copied, distributed, printed, searched, linked to the full text, indexed, and used for any lawful purpose. ANASAY aims to make scholarly knowledge accessible to wider audiences and to increase scholarly visibility. Within this scope, articles published in the Journal are made available online free of charge.

6. Permission Policy

As of the first issue in 2017, the Journal’s content has been licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 International License.
Under this license, users may share, adapt, reproduce, and distribute the Journal’s content for non-commercial purposes, provided that they appropriately reference the original author and the Journal.

7. Advertising Policy
ANASAY Journal does not accept advertisements on its website or in any of its publication platforms (print/digital). Therefore, no advertising space is sold, and applications or requests for advertising are not accepted or considered.

8. 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, the editorial board, and/or the publisher. The editors, editorial board, and publisher are neither obliged to adopt nor endorse the views put forward in the articles, nor can they be held responsible for the claims, comments, or conclusions in the content. Ensuring the scientific accuracy of the work, research integrity, and that the views expressed in the text belong to the author(s) is the responsibility of the author(s). The Journal management provides a publication platform within the framework of peer-review and publication processes so that scholarly works can be shared with the academic community.

6. 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

Last Update Time: 2/15/26

   Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 International Licens