The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and pays regard to Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) on https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing

The subjects covered in the manuscripts submitted to the Journal for publication must be in accordance with the aim and scope of the Journal. Only those manuscripts approved by every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.

Changing the name of an author (omission, addition or order) in papers submitted to the Journal requires written permission of all declared authors.

Plagiarism, duplication, fraud authorship/denied authorship, research/data fabrication, salami slicing/salami publication, breaching of copyrights, prevailing conflict of interest are unethical behaviors. All manuscripts not in accordance with the accepted ethical standards will be removed from the publication. This also contains any possible malpractice discovered after the publication.

Asia Minor Studies Journal complies with the ethical rules in the acceptance and publication of manuscripts.iThenticate program is used to check plagiarism. Manuscripts with more than 20 percent excerpt and overlapping with other publications without proper citation are not reviewed and immediately rejected.

After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by the editors-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope. The editor provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles and hands over the papers matching the formal rules to at least two national/international referees for evaluation and gives green light for publication upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (the importance and contribution of the work, its originality, and the validity of study’s findings and methods, and the clarity of its language) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has complete and unhindered authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.

ASIA MINOR STUDIES and its editors are duty bound to evaluate submitted manuscripts only in terms of their academic qualities, i.e., the importance of the submitted work in its own field, the originality of the article, the validity of research, and the clarity of manuscripts. The journal’s academic scope is the only measure in the selection. The authors’ race, gender, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy and/or institutional affiliation absolutely plays no role in the decision-making process.

Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone but the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher. The decision to confer with the aforementioned actors lies solely with the Editor-in-Chief.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Editors and editorial board members will not use information contained in the submissions to their own benefits, this includes their research, ongoing work, collaborations, etc. without the open written consent given by the author.

Editors will excuse themselves from pre-reviewing and reviewing manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers. If a conflict arises of such nature, the editors will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

The editors and the publisher formally assure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are specialists in their field. After the completion of the review process, the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may get advice from other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Editors, in conference with the Publisher, assures that every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. The journal editors will follow the COPE procedures when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. After the investigation if an ethical concern is found to be corroborated by actual evidence, a erratum, retraction, expression of concern or other relevant statement will be published in the journal.

Peer review is the founding mechanism of academic endeavor. Peer review helps editors make decisions in dialogue with authors. Authors gain important insights about their works and find the chance to develop their work by dint of criticism ensconced in the reviewers’ reports and comments.

A referee invited for review should immediately report on his/her availability and those who feel unqualified to review the research should inform the editor about their decisions as soon as possible.

Manuscripts delivered to the referees should be treated as confidential documents. The manuscripts should not be shown to others, nor their contents should be discussed publicly. Only under the explicit authorization by the Editor-in-Chief a reviewer can seek advice from her colleagues. The Editor-in-Chief will give this permission only under exceptional conditions. This rule also concerns the persons who declined to take part in the process as a referee.

Personal critiques oriented towards the manuscripts’ authors is not an appropriate manner of conduct. Reviews should follow an objective procedure in their reports and upon the acceptance of referee duty they accept that their comments are evidently supported by arguments that is of help to the authors in improving their work.

Reviewers have a duty to report to the authors any published work that is not part of the authors’ references. A reviewer should pay particular attention to the works in the field that are not cited by the authors, or overlaps between different works. A reviewer should notify the editors regarding similarity with any other previously published work, or other manuscripts they have a knowledge of.

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data centre), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

All manuscripts are subject to online scrutiny by means of Turnitin. Any paper with a Turnitin score above 20% originality -including references and block quotes- will be rejected barring any further submissions. Manuscripts checked via Turnitin are not submitted to the online repositories. All authors accept their responsibilities and the editorial staff will take further precautions to prevent plagiarism in case Turnitin does not bring yield satisfactory results. Since the Turkish database is limited, we will take other means, including but not limited to Crossref, ithenticate, and/or Google search.

However, 20% threshold does not entail editors' automatic response would be positive, any breach of academic code of conduct, including, but not limited to misquote, misrepresent, and failure to properly cite sources, would end up in rejection and/or extensive revision.

Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.

The publication of some kinds of articles (such as clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided that certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).

Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions.

If a decision is made asking for a "revise and resubmit," authors accept their responsibility in answering the criticism voiced in the reviewer form and should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.

Fundamental errors in published works

It is the authors' prerogative to discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work. If such an issue is discovered, the author(s) are expected it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper. 

It is the authors' prerogative to discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work. If such an issue is discovered, the author(s) are expected it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.