Journal of Dependence

Bağımlılık Dergisi – Journal of Dependence is a scientific journal devoted to publishing original research, reviews, case reports, commentaries, and policy in all areas of  dependence including behavioral dependence. Welcomed articles range from studies of the chemistry of substances of abuse, their actions at molecular and cellular sites, in vitro and in vivo investigations of their biochemical, pharmacological and behavioural actions, laboratory-based and clinical research in humans, substance abuse treatment and prevention research, and studies using methods from epidemiology, sociology, and economics.

Chemistry of substances of abuse, their actions at molecular and cellular sites, in vitro and in vivo investigations of their biochemical, pharmacological and behavioural actions, laboratory-based and clinical research in humans, substance abuse treatment and prevention research, and studies using methods from epidemiology, sociology, and economics.

GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Journal of Dependence is a scientific disciplinary publication in the fields of psychiatry, neurobiology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, social services, and forensic medicine. Contents include experimental studies, clinical studies, compilations, case reports, short notices, the introduction of new publications, announcements of congresses and congresses, and type of letter.  Journal of Dependence is published quarterly.

2.  Journal of Dependence publishes research, review, case report, original articles/essays which will expand horizons in education/practice and psychiatry, translated articles, letter/discussion, book and thesis overviews in the field of psychiatry and related fields.

3. The journal is published quarterly, in the form of four issues/year/volume.

4. The articles submitted to the journal are published following review by the editorial board and at least two advisors and once the necessary amendments are made (MS Word program,   Arial size 10 font with double spacing is required). The articles should not have be previously published or submitted to another journal in order to be published.

5. Articles which are not accepted for publishing are not returned, the review report of the article is sent to the author(s).

6. The publication rights of the articles accepted for publishing are transferred to the journal with the ‘Copyright Transfer Form'.

7. No payment is made in return for published article. 

8. In papers which have been previously presented in a conference or symposium, this should be stated as a footnote.

9. Local ethical council approval should be obtained for research and declared in the manuscript with decision number, date and council name

10. The author(s) of the accepted article are considered to have accepted the Turkish revision to be made by the editor.

GUIDELINES AND CHARACTERISTICS

1. The language of Journal of Dependence is Turkish  and English. The articles should be written in easy to understand, fluent, plain language and long verbalisms should be avoided. Turkish equivalents of foreign word and  abbreviations should be provided in full within parentheses where they first occur in the text. Generic names of medicines should be used. Footnotes should not be used in the articles. The English (or Turkish) translations of published articles are put on the internet environment.

2. The articles should be formatted in A4 dimensions, with a 2.5 cm margin on each side, and with double spacing; and should be sent via online submissions System. 

3. Title page: The title page contains the title of the article, the author(s)’ first and last names, academic title(s), organizations, correspondence addresses, telephone-fax numbers and e-mail addresses. The author(s) should be the person(s) who have conducted and written the study directly.

4. First page: Abstracts in Turkish and English with titles (between 200-300 words in research papers, 100-200 in review and case reports) should be written and 3-8 key words added in accordance with Index Medicus. Abstracts should be arranged in sections of objective-methods-results-discussion.

5. Research papers: Following the Abstract, these should include the sub headings of introduction-methods and materials-results-discussion-references; should contain the latest information related to the subject; the method should be clearly stated; the validity and reliability studies of the measuring tools used, and the tests, standard deviation, and test values used for evaluation should be stated. In the discussion, the clinical and theoretical benefits, application areas, and the innovations brought by the results should be emphasized. There should be no more than five table and figures, they should be put on separate pages, and their place in the text stated. A point should be used in Arabic numerals and decimals.

6. Review articles: The objective, method applied, resources used, conclusions drawn should be stated.

7. Case reports: Typical or rare cases considered to be beneficial from a clinical or theoretical education aspect.

8. Translation, book and thesis overview: Translation, book and thesis overviews should be brief, an original copy of the thesis or translated article should be sent.

9. Original article, letter: All kinds of innovative, critical issues on subjects related to psychiatry and the journal.

10. References:

- The references should be numbered in order of occurrence in the text, in the form of superscript small numbers.

For example, ‘…is stated.8’. The same order should be followed in the References section. The number of references should not exceed fifty in review and research, and twenty in case reports.

- Journal names should be provided in abbreviated form in accordance with NCBI Referenced Journal List (PubMed), number of issue should not be written after volume unless page numbering is unique to each issue

- If the number of authors is equal or less than four, all, if more than four, the first three should be stated followed by the expression ‘et al.’.

- Abstracts, personal interviews, unpublished articles should not be cited as reference.

Example for journal

King M, Bartlett A. British psychiatry and homosexuality. Br J Psychiatry 1999; 175: 106-113.

Example for journal issue supplement

Wasylenski DA. The cost of schizophrenia. Can J Psychiatry 1994; 39(Suppl.2): 65-69.

Example for book

Goldberg D, Benjamin S, Creed F. Psychiatry in Medical Practice, second ed., London, Routledge, 1994.

Example for book section

Rothschild AJ. Mood disorders. AM Nicholi Jr (Ed.), Harvard Guide to Psychiatry, third ed., Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1999, p.281-307.

Example for book translation

Schuckit MA. Alcohol and Substance Abuse. K Kamberoglu (Translated by), Izmir, Kanyılmaz Printers, 1993.

Example for thesis

Uslu E. Patient Visits in Psychiatry Clinic. Unpublished Master Thesis, Sivas, Cumhuriyet University Health Sciences, 1996.

Example for conference/symposium papers

Analan E, Dogan O, Akyüz G. The role of folate in the treatment of major depressive disorder. 35th National Congress of Psychiatry (6-12 September 1999, Trabzon), Complete Text Book, 1999, p.261-264, Trabzon, Turkey.

Author(s) are responsible for the content of the articles and the accuracy of the references. Quotations can be made for scientific purposes by citing sources.

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement (Ethical guidelines for publication)

The publication of an article in the peer-reviewed journal “ Journal of Dependence  is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society of society-owned or sponsored journals.

We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors. Finally, we are working closely with other publishers and industry associations to set standards for best practices on ethical matters, errors and retractions - and are prepared to provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.

Duties of authors

(These guidelines are based on existing COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.)

Reporting standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, 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 behavior and is unacceptable.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided 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. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.

Acknowledgement of sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Authorship of the paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

Duties of editors

(These guidelines are based on existing COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.)

Publication decisions

The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.

Fair play

An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

It should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations.

Non-peer reviewed sections of their journal should be clearly identified.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Duties of reviewers

(These guidelines are based on existing  COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.)

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.  Journal of Dependence  shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Ethical Principles

The following ethical duties and responsibilities have been prepared by taking into account the guidelines and policies published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as open access.

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

Author(s) submitting manuscripts to the Journal of Dependence are expected to comply with the following ethical responsibilities:

The publication processes applied in the Journal of Addiction are the basis for the development and dissemination of knowledge in an impartial and reputable manner. The processes applied in this direction are directly reflected in the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions supporting the authors. Peer-reviewed studies are studies that embody and support the scientific method. At this point, it is important that all stakeholders of the process (authors, readers and researchers, publishers, referees and editors) comply with the standards for ethical principles. Within the scope of Journal of Dependence publication ethics, all stakeholders are expected to carry the following ethical responsibilities.
The work submitted by the author(s) is expected to be original. In case the author(s) utilise other studies or use other studies, they are required to cite and/or quote them completely and accurately.
Persons who do not contribute intellectually to the content of the study should not be listed as authors.
All manuscripts submitted for publication must disclose any conflicts of interest and relationships, if any.
Raw data may be requested from the author(s) within the framework of the evaluation processes, in such a case, the author(s) should be ready to present the expected data and information to the editorial board and scientific board.
The author(s) should have a document showing that they have the rights to use the data used, the necessary permissions related to the research/analyses, or that the consent of the experimental subjects has been obtained.
In the event that the author(s) notices an error or mistake in the published, early appearance or evaluation stage of the manuscript, the author(s) has the obligation to inform the journal editor or publisher and to cooperate with the editor in the correction or withdrawal process.
Authors cannot have their work in the submission process of more than one journal at the same time. Each application can be started after the completion of the previous application. A study published in another journal cannot be submitted to the Journal of Dependence.
It cannot be proposed to change the author responsibilities (such as adding an author, changing the author order, removing an author) of a study whose evaluation process has started.
Ethical Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

The editors and field editors of the Journal of Dependence should have the following ethical duties and responsibilities based on the ‘COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors’ and ‘COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors’ published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as open access:

General duties and responsibilities

The editors are responsible for every publication in the Journal of Addiction. In the context of this responsibility, editors have the following roles and obligations

To endeavour to meet the information needs of readers and authors,
Ensuring the continuous development of the magazine,
Carrying out processes to improve the quality of studies published in the journal,
Supporting freedom of thought,
Ensuring academic integrity,
Continuing business processes without compromising intellectual property rights and ethical standards,
Demonstrating openness and transparency in terms of publication in matters requiring correction and clarification.
Relations with the reader

Editors should make decisions by taking into account the expectations of knowledge, skills and experience needed by all readers, researchers and practitioners. They should pay attention to the contribution of the published studies to the readers, researchers, practitioners and scientific literature and that they are original. In addition, editors are obliged to take into account feedback from readers, researchers and practitioners and to provide explanatory and informative feedback.

Relations with authors

The duties and responsibilities of the editors towards the authors are as follows:

Editors should make a positive or negative decision based on the importance, original value, validity, clarity of expression and the aims and objectives of the journal.
Unless there is a serious problem with the studies that are suitable for the scope of publication, they should be included in the preliminary evaluation stage.
Editors should not ignore favourable referee recommendations unless there is a serious problem with the study.
New editors should not change the decisions made by the previous editor(s) unless there is a serious problem.
‘Double Blind Review and Evaluation Process’ should be published and editors should prevent deviations that may occur in the defined processes.
Authors should be notified and returned in an explanatory and informative manner.

Relations with reviewers

The duties and responsibilities of the editors towards the reviewers are as follows:
Determine the referees in accordance with the subject of the study.
They are obliged to provide the information and guides that the reviewers will need during the evaluation phase.
It should observe whether there is a conflict of interest between the authors and the reviewers.
Keep the identity information of the reviewers confidential within the context of the double-blind review system.
Encourage reviewers to evaluate the manuscript in an impartial, scientific and objective manner.
Determine practices and policies to improve the performance of reviewers.
Take necessary steps to dynamically update the reviewer pool.
Prevent unkind and unscientific evaluations.
Take steps to ensure that the referee pool consists of a wide range of reviewers.

Relations with the editorial board

Editors should ensure that all editorial board members carry out the processes in accordance with the publication policies and guidelines. They should inform the editorial board members about the publication policies and keep them informed about the developments. Editors should also

Ensure that editorial board members evaluate the studies impartially and independently.
They should identify new editorial board members who can contribute and have appropriate qualifications.
Send manuscripts suitable for the expertise of the editorial board members for evaluation.
Interact regularly with the editorial board.
Organise meetings with the editorial board at regular intervals for the development of publication policies and the journal.
Relations with the journal owner and publisher

The relationship between the editors and the publisher is based on the principle of editorial independence. In accordance with the written agreement between the editors and the publisher, all editorial decisions are independent of the publisher and the journal owner.

Editorial and double blind review processes

Editors are obliged to implement the ‘Blind Review and Evaluation Process’ policies in the journal publication policies. In this context, the editors ensure that each manuscript is evaluated in a fair, impartial and timely manner.

Quality Assurance

Editors are responsible for the publication of each article published in the journal in accordance with the journal's publication policies and international standards.

Protection of personal data

Editors are obliged to ensure the protection of personal data regarding the subjects or images included in the evaluated studies. Unless the explicit consent of the individuals used in the studies is documented, they are responsible for rejecting the study. In addition, editors are responsible for protecting the individual data of authors, reviewers and readers.

Ethics committee, human and animal rights

Editors are responsible for ensuring the protection of human and animal rights in the evaluated studies. The ethics committee approval for the subjects used in the studies is responsible for rejecting the study in the absence of permissions for experimental research.

Precautions against possible abuse and misconduct

Editors are obliged to take precautions against possible misconduct and abuse of office. In addition to conducting a rigorous and objective investigation in identifying and evaluating complaints about this situation, it is among the responsibilities of the editor to share the findings on the subject.

Ensuring the integrity of academic publications

Editors should ensure that errors, inconsistencies or misleading judgements in manuscripts are corrected promptly.

Protection of intellectual property rights

Editors are responsible for protecting the intellectual property rights of all published articles and defending the rights of the journal and the author(s) in case of possible violations. In addition, editors are obliged to take the necessary measures to ensure that the content of all published articles does not violate the intellectual property rights of other publications.

Constructivism and openness to discussion

Editors

Should take into account the convincing criticisms of the works published in the journal and show a constructive attitude towards these criticisms.

They should give the author(s) of the criticised studies the right to reply.

They should not ignore or exclude studies with negative results.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

The evaluation of all studies by ‘Double Blind Review’ directly affects the quality of the publication. This process provides confidence through objective and independent evaluation of the publication. The evaluation process of the Journal of Dependence is carried out with the principle of double blind refereeing. Reviewers cannot communicate directly with the authors, and evaluations and comments are communicated through the journal management system. In this process, reviewer comments on evaluation forms and full texts are communicated to the author(s) through the editor. In this context, reviewers who evaluate studies for the Journal of Dependence are expected to have the following ethical responsibilities:

Only accept to evaluate studies related to their field of expertise.
Evaluate with impartiality and confidentiality.
If they think that they are faced with a conflict of interest during the evaluation process, they should refuse to review the study and inform the journal editor.
In accordance with the principle of confidentiality, they should destroy the studies they have reviewed after the evaluation process. They can only use the final versions of the studies they have reviewed only after publication.
They should make the evaluation objectively only with regard to the content of the study. They should not allow nationality, gender, religious beliefs, political beliefs and commercial concerns to influence the evaluation.
They should make the evaluation in a constructive and courteous manner. They should not make derogatory personal comments containing hostility, slander and insult.
They should carry out the work they accept for evaluation on time and in accordance with the above ethical responsibilities.

Ethical Responsibilities of the Publisher

The Editors and Editorial Board of the Journal of Dependence act with the awareness of the following ethical responsibilities:

The editors are responsible for all processes of the studies submitted to the Journal of Dependence. In this context, editors are the decision-makers, regardless of economic or political gains.
It is committed to the formation of independent editorial judgement.
Protects the ownership and copyright of every article published in the Journal of Addiction and undertakes the obligation to keep a record of every published copy.
The editors have the responsibility to take measures against all forms of scientific misconduct, citation mongering and plagiarism.

If You Encounter an Unethical Situation

If you encounter any unethical behaviour or content in the Journal of Addiction other than the ethical responsibilities mentioned above, please notify the editor via e-mail.


Fee Policy
Journal of Dependence does not charge any fee during the submission, evaluation, acceptance, printing and publication process of the article.


Article evaluation period
It is aimed to complete the evaluation process of the articles submitted to the Journal of Dependence within 4 to 6 weeks. In unusual cases, this period may sometimes be slightly longer.

Correction and retraction processes
Articles submitted to the Journal of Addiction cannot be withdrawn after the refereeing process has started or because they have been submitted to another journal. Authors can contact the editors of the journal with a petition stating that they wish to withdraw their article and withdraw their articles for which the refereeing process has not started. Authors cannot send their manuscripts to another journal for evaluation unless the editorial board approves the withdrawal request.
Corrections, Withdrawals and ‘Expressions of Concern’
Editors initially assume that authors base their work on honest observations. If articles require proofreading or correction of typographical errors, the corrections are included in the table of contents on a numbered page. Includes original citations; links to the original article (similarly if on-line). If there is scientific fraud, the journal will issue a retraction. As an alternative to a retraction, the editor may choose to publish a statement of concern about the composition and integrity of the manuscript.

The retraction or statement of concern appears on a numbered page in a prominent section of the journal alongside the on-line version, is listed in the table of contents, and includes the title of the original article in its introduction. The retraction text explains the reason for retracting the article.

There is no fee for article submission/process management in the Journal of Dependence.