Publication Ethics
All parties included in the publication process (authors, readers and researchers, publisher, reviewers and editors) carried out by Turkophone comply with the standards of ethical considerations.Our journal adopts guidelines and policies published by the Turkish Council of Higher Education and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) on ethical duties and responsibilities.
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
The authors who submit their manuscripts to Turkophone are expected to comply with the following ethical responsibilities:
Author(s) must submit original studies to the journal. If they utilize or use other studies, they must make the in-text and end-text references accurately and completely.
People who have not contributed to the study at the intellectual level should not be indicated as author.
If the manuscripts submitted to be published are subject of conflicting interests or relations, these must be explained.
During the review process of their manuscripts, author(s) may be asked to supply raw data. In such a case, author(s) should be ready to submit such data and information to the editorial and scientific boards.
Author(s) should document that they have the participants' consent and the necessary permissions related with the sharing and research/analysis of the data that are used.
Author(s) bears the responsibility to inform the editor of the journal or publisher if they happen to notice a mistake in their study which is in early release or publication process and to cooperate with the editors during the correction or withdrawal process.
Authors cannot submit their studies to multiple journals simultaneously. Each submission can be made only after the previous one is completed. A study published in another journal in another language or in its original cannot be submitted to IJER, partially or originally, in any language.
Ethical Responsibilities of Editors
The editor and field editors of Turkophone should hold the following ethical responsibilities that are based on the guides "COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" and "COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" published as open Access by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
General duties and responsibilities
Editors are responsible for each study published in Turkophone. In this respect, the editors have the following roles and responsibilities:
Making efforts to meet the demand for knowledge from readers and authors,
Ensuring the continuous development of the journal,
Managing the procedures aimed to improve the quality of the studies published in the journal,
Supporting freedom of expression,
Ensuring academic integrity,
Following the procedures without making concessions on intellectual property rights and ethical standards,
Being transparent and clear in issues that require correction or explanation.
Relationships with Readers
Editors must make decisions taking into consideration the knowledge, skills and expectations of all readers, researchers and practitioners need. They must also ensure that the published studies contribute to literature and be original. Moreover, they must take notice of the feedback received from researchers and practitioners and provide explanatory and informative feedback.
Relationships with Authors
Editors have the following duties and responsibilities in their relations with authors:
Editors must make positive or negative decisions about the studies' importance, originality, validity, clarity in wording and suitability with the journal's aims and objectives.
Editors must accept the studies that are within the scope of publication into pre review process unless there are serious problems with the study.
Editors must not ignore positive suggestions made by reviewers unless there are serious problems with the study.
New editors, unless there are serious issues, must not change the previous editor's decisions about the studies.
"Blind Review and Review Process" must be published and editors must prevent possible diversions in the defined processes.
Editors must publish an "Writing Rules" that is comprehensive enough in answering queries by authors. This guide must be updated regularly.
Authors should be provided with explanatory and informative feedback.
Relationships with Reviewers
Editors have the following duties and responsibilities in their relations with reviewers:
Editors must:
choose reviewers in accordance with the subject of the study.
provide the information and guidance reviewers may need during the review process.
observe whether there are conflicting interests between reviewers and authors.
keep the identities of reviewers confidential in blind review.
encourage the reviewers to review the manuscript in an unbiased, scientific and objective tone.
evaluate reviewers regularly based on criteria like performance and timing.
develop practices and policies that increase the performance of reviewers.
take necessary steps to update the reviewer pool dynamically.
prevent unkind and unscientific reviews.
make effort to ensure the reviewer pool has a wide range.
Relationships with the Editorial Board
Editors must make sure that the members of the editorial board follow the procedures in accordance with the publication policies and guidelines, and must inform the members about the publication policies and developments. The editors must also train new members of the editorial board and provide the information they need.
Moreover, editors must
ensure that the members of the editorial board review the manuscripts in an unbiased and independent manner.
select the new members of the editorial board from those who can contribute to the journal and are qualified enough.
send manuscripts for review based on the subject of expertise of the editorial board members.
regularly communicate with the editorial board.
arrange regular meetings with the editorial board for the development of publication policies and the journal.
Relationships with the Journal's Owner and Publisher
The relationship between the editors and publisher is based on the principle of the independency of editors. All the decisions made by the editors are independent of the publisher and the owner of the journal as required by the agreement made between editors and publisher.
Editorial and Blind Review Processes
Editors are obliged to comply with the policies of "Blind Review and Review Process" stated in the journal's publication policies. Therefore, the editors ensure that each manuscript is reviewed in an unbiased, fair and timely manner.
Quality Assurance
Editors must make sure that articles in the journal are published in accordance with the publication policies of the journal and international standards.
Protection of Personal Information
Editors are supposed to protect the personal information related with the subjects or visuals in the studies being reviewed, and to reject the study if there is no documentation of the subjects' consent. Furthermore, editors are supposed to protect the personal information of the authors, reviewers and readers.
Encouraging Ethical Rules and Protection of Human and Animal Rights
Editors are supposed to protect human and animal rights in the studies being reviewed and must reject the experimental studies which do not have ethical and related committee’s approval about the population given in such studies.
Precautions against possible Abuse and Malpractice
Editors are supposed to take precautions against possible abuse and malpractice. They must conduct investigations meticulously and objectively in determining and evaluating complaints about such situations. They must also share the results of the investigation.
Ensuring Academic Integrity
Editors must make sure that the mistakes, inconsistencies or misdirections in studies are corrected quickly.
Protection of Intellectual Property Rights
Editors are responsible for protecting the intellectual property rights of all the articles published in the journal and the rights of the journal and author(s) in cases where these rights are violated. Also, editors must take the necessary precautions in order to prevent the content of all published articles from violating the intellectual property rights of other publications.
Constructiveness and Openness to Discussion
Editors must
pay attention to the convincing criticism about studies published in the journal and must have a constructive attitude towards such criticism.
grant the right of reply to the author(s) of the criticized study.
not ignore or exclude the study that include negative results.
Complaints
Editors must examine the complaints from authors, reviewers or readers and respond to them in an explanatory and enlightening manner.
Political and Economic Apprehensions
Neither the owner of the journal, publisher or any other political or economical factor can influence the independent decision taking of the editors.
Conflicting Interests
Editors, acknowledging that there may be conflicting interests between reviewers and other editors, guarantee that the publication process of the manuscripts will be completed in an independent and unbiased manner.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EUROASIAN RESEARCHES ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) POLICY
General Principles
International Journal of Euroasian Researches adopts a publication policy grounded in scientific integrity, ethical publishing principles, and academic transparency. In light of the increasing use of generative artificial intelligence technologies in academic writing processes, the journal aims to establish a clear, traceable, and academically sound framework defining the conditions under which such tools may be used. This policy is aligned with the Council of Higher Education’s (YÖK) Ethical Guiding Principles on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence and with COPE standards, and it will be updated in parallel with developments in artificial intelligence technologies.
Scope of AI Use
Authors may use artificial intelligence tools solely for superficial processes such as grammar, spelling, punctuation, and formal formatting. While limited interventions aimed at improving the clarity of academic expression are acceptable, the use of artificial intelligence for generating scientific arguments, constructing theoretical frameworks, conducting data analysis, interpreting the literature, drawing conclusions, or writing coherent sections of the manuscript is not permitted. Texts that are entirely generated or substantially edited by artificial intelligence cannot be considered an academic contribution and are incompatible with standards of scientific responsibility.
Transparency and Disclosure Obligation
Authors who make use of artificial intelligence must explicitly declare this in the Ethical Statement section of their manuscript. The name of the tool used, as well as the purpose and stages of its use, must be clearly specified. Concealment of AI use, incomplete disclosure, or statements that may lead to misrepresentation are considered violations of publication ethics. The journal includes these disclosures in published articles and may request additional clarification from authors when deemed necessary.
Scientific Accuracy and Responsibility
No content, suggestion, or textual element generated by artificial intelligence tools absolve the author of scientific responsibility. Authors are obliged to meticulously verify the accuracy, validity, and consistency of AI-generated outputs with academic sources. The potential risks of artificial intelligence, such as generating incorrect information, producing fabricated references, offering contextually inappropriate interpretations, or distorting data, must be considered, and these risks must be mitigated with due scientific diligence. All ethical, legal, and scientific consequences arising from the use of artificial intelligence rest entirely with the author.
Impartiality and Academic Ethics
Authors are required to disclose conflicts of interest and to adhere strictly to the principle of impartiality. It should be acknowledged that artificial intelligence tools may contain systematic biases and may produce prejudiced outcomes based on data sets. Therefore, it is essential to avoid use of artificial intelligence that could compromise academic objectivity, to subject the information obtained during evaluation processes to rigorous scientific scrutiny, and to minimize the risk of bias.
Privacy and Data Security
When using artificial intelligence tools, uploading personal data, materials subject to ethics committee approval, or academic documents with restricted access are strictly discouraged. Authors must not transfer any data sets that could compromise data security to third-party AI tools and must avoid practices that may violate the confidentiality of research participants, historical documents, or content constituting cultural heritage. The journal expects a high level of care and responsibility regarding data security and personal privacy.
Referencing and Citation Policy
Artificial intelligence tools may not be cited as sources in the bibliography, footnotes, or reference lists. Information regarding the use of AI may only be included in the Ethical Statement section and does not, under any circumstances, constitute a scientific reference. Academic citations must rely exclusively on primary and secondary sources. The use of fabricated or unverifiable references suggested by artificial intelligence tools is considered a violation of publication ethics.
Implementation and Sanctions
If it is determined that artificial intelligence has been used beyond the limits specified in this policy, the manuscript will not be taken into the evaluation process or will be removed from it. In cases of misleading declarations, incomplete disclosure, or the production of fabricated content, the journal reserves the right to reject the manuscript, withdraw it from the evaluation process, retract it if already published, and, when necessary, impose a publication ban on the author. All ethical evaluations are conducted in accordance with COPE principles.
Declaration of AI Use
If authors have made use of any artificial intelligence–assisted technologies during the preparation of their work, they are obliged to clearly state this both in the cover letter and in the appropriate section of the manuscript. In this context, the name, version, purpose, and scope of use of the artificial intelligence tool must be explained in detail. The declaration should be presented in a manner consistent with the academic structure of the work, such as in the Ethical Statement, the methodology section, or an information note.
Scientific Accuracy and Responsibility
Regardless of how limited the output obtained from artificial intelligence tools may be, the verification of content accuracy and the validity of sources rests entirely with the authors. Artificial intelligence tools may occasionally generate inaccurate, inconsistent, fabricated, or biased information; therefore, authors must compare all information with primary academic sources and verify its accuracy. Preventing potential errors and distortions, filtering out misleading results, and ensuring that the text complies with academic standards constitute the author’s scientific obligations.
Prevention of Plagiarism Risk
As texts generated by artificial intelligence tools may carry a risk of plagiarism, authors must compare such content with original sources and ensure that it is unique, verifiable, and of academic quality. Directly using AI-generated text, presenting cited sources without verification, or employing unconfirmed transfers constitutes an ethical violation. Authors must explicitly declare that they themselves have ensured the originality and source compliance of all artificial intelligence–assisted content.
Author Responsibility and Authorship Criteria
Artificial intelligence tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude) may not, under any circumstances, be listed as authors. Since artificial intelligence cannot assume responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, methodological rigor, or original scientific contribution of a study, it does not meet authorship criteria. The hypotheses, interpretations, analyses, results, and scientific conclusions presented in the manuscript must fully reflect the authors’ original ideas; any expressions generated by artificial intelligence must be subjected to rigorous academic scrutiny.
Unacceptable Uses of AI
The use of artificial intelligence by authors for the purposes listed below is contrary to the ethics of scientific publishing, and such works will not be accepted by the journal:
• Generating text or code without rigorous academic oversight,
• Producing synthetic data lacking a methodological basis to substitute for missing data,
• Presenting inaccurate, unverified, or entirely AI-fabricated content in abstracts, supplementary materials, or any section of the manuscript,
• Generating, altering, manipulating, or concealing, adding, or deleting specific features of research materials—such as images, graphs, tables, statistics, formulas, or medical data—through artificial intelligence,
• Artificially intervening in original data or historical/cultural materials in a manner that distorts the authenticity of the content.
Such practices undermine data integrity and the reliability of research and are therefore considered ethical violations by the journal, as they harm scientific production.
Sanctions Framework
Authors are required to use artificial intelligence tools in compliance with ethical principles. If undisclosed AI use, fabricated content, unverified source use, or data manipulation is identified, the work will be removed from the evaluation process. Where necessary, the manuscript may be rejected, retracted if already published, and a publication ban may be imposed on the authors. In all procedures, COPE principles serve as the fundamental reference.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) USE POLICY FOR REVIEWERS
Confidentiality and Reviewer Responsibility
International Journal of Euroasian Researches regards the peer review process as the most critical stage of scientific evaluation and adopts the absolute protection of confidentiality as a fundamental principle at this stage. Reviewers must use the manuscripts submitted to them solely for evaluation purposes and must not transfer the manuscript in whole or in part to any person, institution, or digital tool. All information obtained during the evaluation process must be kept confidential and must not be used for any other purpose. This principle is fully aligned with the COPE – Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools
Reviewers must not upload a manuscript submitted for evaluation, or any content related to it, to generative artificial intelligence tools, Large Language Models, or online text-processing systems. Such use constitutes a violation of the authors’ copyright and confidentiality rights and is incompatible with the fundamental ethical principles of the peer review process. Peer review is a scientific responsibility that can only be carried out through human judgment; capacities such as critical evaluation, contextual analysis, and the formation of academic judgment cannot be fulfilled by artificial intelligence.
Quality of the Peer Review Evaluation
Reviewer reports must reflect the reviewer’s personal assessment of the submitted work, their academic expertise, and their scientific analysis. As artificial intelligence tools carry risks of generating incorrect, incomplete, or biased content, they cannot provide decision-making input into the evaluation process. The reviewer is responsible at every stage for the scientific accuracy and ethical appropriateness of their comments, recommendations, and conclusions; this responsibility cannot and must not be delegated to artificial intelligence.
Limited and Ethical Conditions of Use
Reviewers may make limited use of artificial intelligence solely for superficial linguistic adjustments, such as language checks, simplifying expressions, or translating evaluation notes written in a foreign language. Such use must be strictly limited so as not to affect the content of the evaluation or the scientific judgment, and it must be explicitly declared by the reviewer when submitting the report. Artificial intelligence tools must not be allowed to intervene in the scientific reasoning that shapes the evaluation decision.
Reporting Inappropriate Use
If reviewers suspect that generative artificial intelligence has been used in an inappropriate, concealed, or unethical manner in a submission sent to them, they must inform the editor without delay. This reporting is a mandatory practice to protect the ethical integrity of authors, reviewers, and the journal alike. The journal evaluates reported cases in accordance with COPE principles and initiates the necessary ethical procedures.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) USE POLICY FOR EDITORS
Confidentiality and Editorial Responsibility
International Journal of Euroasian Researches adopts the protection of confidentiality as a fundamental ethical principle in scholarly publishing. Editors are responsible for ensuring the confidentiality of manuscripts submitted to the journal; no work may be shared with any person, institution, or digital tool not involved in the evaluation process. The content of manuscripts may be used solely for the purpose of scientific evaluation and must not be transferred or stored for any other purpose. This approach is fully aligned with the COPE – Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Prohibition of the Use of AI Tools in Editorial Evaluation
Editors must not upload a manuscript submitted to them, or any part thereof, to generative artificial intelligence tools or Large Language Models for the purpose of facilitating evaluation, review, or decision-making processes. Such use violates the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights and undermines the reliability of the editorial process. Evaluating an academic text is a scientific responsibility based exclusively on human judgment; critical commentary, contextual analysis, and the development of academic decisions cannot be performed by artificial intelligence.
Human Responsibility in the Editorial Decision-Making Process
Generative artificial intelligence tools may not be used in any manner to provide evaluation, weigh arguments, or shape the final decision in editors’ decision-making processes. The risk that AI tools may generate inaccurate, incomplete, or biased content creates an unacceptable level of uncertainty in editorial decision-making. The editor bears individual responsibility for the editorial review of the submitted manuscript, the final acceptance or rejection decision, and the communication of all such processes to the authors; this responsibility cannot, under any circumstances, be delegated to artificial intelligence tools.
Prohibition of AI Use for Text Generation Purposes
Editors must not use generative artificial intelligence tools to produce decision letters, evaluation summaries, or statements concerning unpublished works. Editorial correspondence and decision texts reflect the editor’s own assessment, academic judgment, and scientific responsibility; therefore, they must be written by a human author.
Use of AI in the Process of Identifying Appropriate Reviewers
Editors may use generative artificial intelligence tools solely to provide limited search support in the process of identifying appropriate reviewers. Such use is restricted to limited technical tasks, such as reviewer suggestions or field scanning, and must not intervene in any stage of the evaluation process. AI tools may not be used to weigh peer review decisions or to read or assess review reports.
Editorial Review of Suspected AI Use
If editors suspect the use of generative artificial intelligence in a submitted manuscript or a peer review report, they must carefully assess the situation and conduct the necessary editorial review within the framework of the journal’s artificial intelligence policy. In cases of suspected inappropriate or undisclosed AI use, the editor may request clarification from the author or reviewer and, when deemed necessary, refer the matter to an ethical evaluation in accordance with COPE principles.