Publication Principles
The ASSOS Journal of Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences adheres to the principles of academic integrity and takes into account the recommendations of the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors), which set out evaluation principles in the context of academic integrity, as well as the international standards of publication ethics for authors and editors provided by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). All submissions are subject to a double-blind peer review process based on an initial screening by the editorial board, and the evaluation principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) include significant contribution to the field, conceptual quality, appropriate methodology and clarity of presentation. The publication of an article in a ‘double-blind, peer-reviewed’ journal is fundamental to the development of a consistent and reputable knowledge network. In double-blind peer review, articles written by ‘prestigious’ or well-known authors are evaluated on the basis of the content of their articles rather than the author’s reputation. It is therefore important to establish the expected standards of ethical conduct for all parties involved in the publishing process, including authors, journal editors, peer reviewers and publishers. Authors must ensure that they produce entirely original work and, where they have used the work and/or words of others, that these are properly quoted or cited.
Ethical Responsibilities Expected of Authors by ASSOS Journal:
Authors must submit their own original work to the journal. If they draw upon or present the findings of other studies in their article, they must cite their sources accurately and comprehensively, both in the text and in the references section.
Authors must submit the copyright transfer agreement and the similarity report form to ASSOS Journal via Dergi Park, together with their articles, at the time of submission.
ASSOS Journal does not accept articles in any form—whether via email, as a .doc or .pdf file—under any circumstances. Submissions to ASSOS Journal must be made exclusively via Dergi Park. Authors must have obtained their ORCID numbers via https://orcid.org/register before submitting their work.
Individuals who have not made an intellectual contribution to the work should not be listed as authors.
If there are any conflicts of interest or relationships in the submitted manuscripts, these must be disclosed and explained.
Authors may be asked to provide their raw data during the peer review process. In such cases, authors must be prepared to submit their data and information to the relevant editorial and scientific boards.
Authors must demonstrate that they have obtained permission and consent from the individuals interviewed in oral history and survey studies, confirming that the relevant interview will be included in the article.
Should authors identify an error or contradictory result in their work that has been published or is in the process of being published, they must notify the editor and submit a correction or retraction.
The Editor’s Ethical Responsibilities
The editor must fulfil the following ethical responsibilities, based on the ‘COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors’ published by COPE as open access.
1.1. General Duties and Responsibilities
1. The editor must strive to meet the needs of readers and authors.
2. The editor must endeavour to continuously improve their journal.
3. They must manage the process effectively to ensure the quality of the journal they publish.
4. They must act in a manner that supports freedom of expression.
5. They must safeguard the integrity of the academic record (index).
6. They must uphold intellectual and ethical standards and must not compromise them.
7. They must always be prepared to publish corrections, clarifications, retraction notices and apologies where necessary.
1.2. Relations with Readers
1. Readers must be informed about who has funded the research or other academic work, and whether the funders have played any role in the research or publication; if so, what that role was.
1.3. Relations with Authors
1. The editor’s decisions to accept or reject a manuscript must be based on the manuscript’s significance, originality and clarity, as well as the validity of the work and its relevance to the journal’s scope.
2. Unless serious problems are identified with a submission, the editor should not reverse a decision to accept a submission.
3. Unless serious problems are identified, the new editor should not overturn the decision of the previous editor regarding the previous editor's decision.
4. A description of the peer-review process should be published, and editors should provide information on any changes to this published process.
5. Journals should have a defined procedure in place to enable authors to appeal against editorial decisions.
6. The editor should publish a guide for authors. This guide should be updated regularly.
1.4. Relations with Reviewers
1. The editor must handle all expectations of reviewers in confidence and draw up guidelines on how submitted manuscripts are to be reviewed.
2. The editor must consider whether reviewers have any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a manuscript for review.
3. Unless the Editor declares that an open review system is used, they must have a system in place that guarantees the anonymity of the review panel.
4. The Editor may publish an acknowledgement within the journal to thank reviewers who have been invited to review a specific article.
1.5. Relations with Editorial Board Members
1. The editor should provide new editorial board members with guidance on all that is expected of them and should keep existing members continuously informed of new policies and developments.
1.6. Relations with Journal Owners and Publishers
1. The Editor must adhere to the principle of editorial independence.
2. The Editor must decide which articles to publish based on their quality and suitability for the journal, without interference from the journal owner or publisher.
3. The editor must have a written contract setting out their relationship with the journal’s owner and/or publisher.
1.7. Editorial and Peer Review Process
1. The editor must endeavour to ensure that the peer review process in the journal is fair, impartial and timely.
2. The Editor must have systems in place to ensure that materials submitted to the journal remain confidential whilst under review.
3. The Editor must strive to ensure the quality of the material published, whilst being aware that different sections within the journal may have different objectives and standards.
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
The review process is conducted on a double-blind basis. Reviewers do not communicate directly with authors; their reviews and comments are processed via the journal’s management system. During this process, the editor forwards the review forms and the reviewers’ comments on the full texts to the author(s).
Reviewers:
• Should only accept reviews within their areas of expertise.
• Must conduct their evaluations impartially and confidentially.
• Must inform the journal editor if they believe they have a conflict of interest and decline to review the article during the review process.
• Must destroy the manuscripts they have reviewed in accordance with the principle of confidentiality after the review process has concluded.
• Reviewers may only use the final versions of the manuscripts they have reviewed once they have been published.
• They must review the article objectively and solely on the basis of its content; nationality, gender, religious and political beliefs, and economic concerns must not influence the evaluation.
• They must review the article in a constructive and courteous tone; they must refrain from making personal comments containing hostility, slander or insults. They must review the article they have agreed to assess in a timely manner and in accordance with the ethical guidelines set out above.
• Reviewers are required to complete the Reviewer Assessment Form for the articles they have reviewed. They must also state in this form their decision as to whether the article is suitable for publication, along with the reasons for their decision.