Publication Ethics

The Journal’s Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement is based, in large part, on the guidelines and standards developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The relevant duties and expectations of authors, reviewers, and editors of the journal are set out below.

Responsibilities of Authors

By submitting a manuscript to the Journal, the author(s) warrant that the manuscript is their own, original work and that it has neither been published previously nor is currently being considered for publication elsewhere. They also warrant that the sources of any ideas and/or words in the manuscript that are not their own have been properly attributed through appropriate citations and/or quotes.

An author should not normally publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in multiple journals or publication venues. Such redundant publication is generally considered to constitute unethical publishing behavior, and if discovered may result in a manuscript under consideration being rejected, or a published article being retracted.

Authors of manuscripts reporting on original research should present an accurate account of the work performed, accompanied by an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. The fabrication of results and the making of fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and may be cause for rejection or retraction of a manuscript or published article.

Where the manuscript reports on commercial software, hardware, or other products, authors must include a declaration at the beginning of the manuscript in which they must either state that no conflict of interest exists or describe the nature of any potential conflict. All sources of financial support for the research should also be disclosed in the manuscript.

The author(s) of a manuscript agree that if the manuscript is accepted for publication in the Journal), the published article will be copyrighted using a Creative Commons “Attribution 4.0 International” license. This license allows others to freely copy, distribute, and display the copyrighted work, and derivative works based upon it, under certain specified conditions.

Authors are responsible for obtaining written permission to include any images or artwork for which they do not hold copyright in their articles, or to adapt any such images or artwork for inclusion in their articles. The copyright holder must be made explicitly aware that the image(s) or artwork will be made freely available online as part of the article under a Creative Commons “Attribution 4.0 International” license.

The authors’ names should be listed on the article in order of their contribution to the article, and all authors take responsibility for their own contributions. Only those individuals who have made a substantive contribution should be listed as authors; those whose contributions are indirect or marginal (e.g., colleagues or supervisors who have reviewed drafts of the work or provided proofreading assistance, and heads of research institutes/centers/labs) should be named in an “Acknowledgments” section at the end of the article, immediately preceding the Reference List. The corresponding author must ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the article, and that all listed co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and agreed to its publication.

Where an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in an article of his/hers that has been published in the Journal, he/she has an obligation to promptly notify the editors and cooperate with them to correct the article or retract it as appropriate.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

The Journal’s reviewers perform work for the journal on a volunteer basis. Given that most of these individuals are in full-time employment, their reviewing activities for the Journal must, by necessity, not be their top priority. Reviewers are free to decline invitations to review particular manuscripts at their discretion, for example, if their current employment workload and/or other commitments make it prohibitive for them to complete a review in a timely fashion and to do justice to the task in the available time frame. They should also not accept manuscript review assignments for which they feel unqualified.

Reviewers who have accepted manuscript assignments are normally expected to submit their reviews within one month. They should recuse themselves from the assignment if it becomes apparent to them at any stage that they do not possess the required expertise to perform the review, or that they may have a potential conflict of interest in performing the review (e.g., one resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, institutions, or companies associated with the manuscript).

Privileged information or ideas obtained by reviewers through the peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents, and must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Journal Editor.

When conducting their reviews, reviewers are asked to do so as objectively as possible, refraining from engaging in personal criticism of the author(s). They are encouraged to express their views clearly, explaining and justifying all recommendations made. They should always attempt to provide detailed and constructive feedback to assist the author(s) in improving their work, even if the manuscript is, in their opinion, not publishable.

Reviewers should identify in their reviews relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s), together with any instances in which proper attribution of sources has not been provided. They should call to the responsible editor’s attention any major resemblances between a manuscript under consideration and other published articles or papers of which they are aware, as well as any concerns they might have in relation to the ethical acceptability of the research reported in the manuscript.

Responsibilities of Editors

The Journal has ultimate responsibility for deciding if a manuscript submitted to the Journal should be published, and in doing so is guided by the journal’s policies as determined by the Journal editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor may consult with the Associate Editor and other members of the editorial team, as well as with reviewers, in making publication decisions.

The editors will evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the race, color, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). They will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the Journal editorial board members, as appropriate. Additionally, the editors will make every effort to ensure the integrity of the blind review process by not revealing the identity of the author(s) of a manuscript to the reviewers of that manuscript, and vice versa.

When evaluating a manuscript for publication, in addition to considering standard criteria pertaining to the rigor of the manuscript, the quality of its presentation, and its contribution to humanity’s stock of knowledge, the editors will also seek evidence that ethical harms have been minimized in the conduct of the reported research. They will question whether the benefits outweigh the harms in the particular study’s case. Since the Journal welcomes the submission of manuscripts from any country, it is necessary to recognize that laws and regulations regarding research ethics and ethical approval vary worldwide. As such, the editors may need to seek clarification in this regard with the author(s) and request that they supply a letter from the relevant institutional ethics committee or board that approved the research.

The editors will be guided by CORE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing an expression of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in the Journal. They are committed to working closely with research organizations and institutions in line with CORE’s advice on Cooperation between Research Institutions and Journals on Research Integrity Cases.

Ethical Policy

Education is available from Art Magazine. All uses used in known standards (user use and all use from the material to collect, augment, retrieve, show any examples, education, etc.) provide use in the International License (CC BY-NC) environment. Commercial use of the content is prohibited. Articles in the journal can be used when available to your author and to the original source. What you design to prepare from the author and publishers.

The journal publishes 2 issues each year as Winter and Summer.

The journal is not evaluated by any stage (article)/users in relation to author publication processors.

The publisher of the journal does not request any publication for electronic access.

Publication Process of the Journal

Preliminary Evaluation Process

Articles submitted to the journal are first reviewed by the journal's assistant editor. Journal editor assistant checks whether the files required for article submission are fully uploaded to the system by the author and whether the file names are appropriate. In addition, it creates the similarity report of the article and uploads it to the system. If there are missing or errors in the files or if the similarity rate of the article is above 30%, the article is sent back to the author to make the necessary updates.

Similarly, if there is a problem in the spelling or language of the article, the article is sent back to the author for correction. If there are many articles from similar subject, method and field, the article is returned to the author for sending to another source. The article, whose ten reviews are completed, directs it to the editor related to the field of the article. From here on, the status of the article appears as IN EDITOR. That means the article has been pre-checked.

While in the assistant editor step, the maximum time given for article control is 15 days. During this process, the status of the article appears as Under Review. When the article is sent back to the author, the author is given 1 week to respond to this request. The author who accepts the request is given 15 days to resubmit the article. In this process, the status of the article appears as pending. The additional time to be given to the author(s) who do not return within the specified periods is 5 days.

The editor, taking into account the similarity report of the article sent to him, checks whether the article is scientifically sufficient, whether it is a study prepared in line with the purpose and scope of the journal, and its originality value. After this check, if it has a positive opinion, the Evaluation step starts. If the editor has a negative opinion, he/she rejects the article without being included in the referee process. The editor can also assign the field editor to do all these checks, if needed.

Evaluation Process

The editor of the article or the field editor appointed by him, after taking over the article, appoints and invites at least two referees related to the subject of the article to review the article. The reviewer's response time to the invitation to evaluate (accept or reject the evaluation of the article) is 7 days. In this process, the status of the article appears as Invitation Sent. The article evaluation form is automatically sent to the referee who accepts the invitation. (In this process, the status of the article appears as Under Evaluation.) The referee's evaluation period for the article is 30 days. Referees who do not return within the specified time are given an additional 15 days.

In the arbitration process, the following principle is acted upon.

The journal works with the principle of double-blind refereeing. This means that the author(s) of the article will not know the identities of the referees who will evaluate the article, and the referees will not know the identities of the author(s). The aim here is to make an unbiased evaluation.

Descriptive information, including author names, is removed from the file content by the editor. In addition, document properties must be anonymized. For this, all information that may suggest the identity of the author in the document should be removed by saying Check for Problems-Inspect Document-Document Inspector-Inspect from the Microsoft Word File menu. In order to hide the author(s) of the presented work, attention should be paid to the citations made in the article. Headers and footers should not contain personal information. When working according to this system, discrimination that may arise from the demographic characteristics or gender of the author is minimized. There is no pressure on the author of the article or the reviewer who examines the article.

The referees who accept the evaluation access the article file through the system (in this process, the referee cannot see the names of the article author(s) through the system) He/she examines the article within 30 days and uploads the completed referee evaluation form to the system. If there is not enough referee opinion, the process continues with the newly appointed referees.

The number of referee evaluations required for the decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the article is determined by the editor of the article. The status of the article, which has the desired number of referee evaluation forms, appears as Ready for Decision. The time given to take action in this step is 15 days. The maximum time allowed for the editor to make a decision (Pending Decision Step) is 15 days.

In this process, the editor has to make a decision in line with the referee reports. It can also add additional views. The referee notifies the reports and suggestions to the author with a decision letter. With this letter, the article can be accepted or rejected. The editor, if he wishes, may request revisions from the author. The period that can be given to the author to respond to the revision request is 7 days. The period given to the author who accepts the revision request is 15 days. (In this process, the status of the article appears as At Author.) After all these steps, accepted articles are transferred to the publication process.

Publishing Process

It is the process in which the accepted articles are prepared for publication in the relevant issue. In this process, the status of the article appears as In Publication Process. In this process, the editor of the publication, the layout writer and the end reader take part. The layout editor is responsible for making the article ready for publication (such as page layout, placement of tables and images in the article, order of references, page numbers according to the priority of the article acceptance date, placement of the publisher's logo in the article). In this process, it is submitted to the author for final approval in order to detect and correct minor errors that may be present in the article. If the author detects any errors during this process, he/she should notify the technical communication officer of the journal by e-mail. The editor of the publication, who receives information from the technical communication, will make the necessary correction.

The final version of the article whose layout is completed, which will be published in the relevant issue, is presented to the users on the journal web page in Early View. Articles wait until they are assigned any number in Early View. It is then published in the relevant issue. After the article is published, the authors do not have the opportunity to edit the article.