PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
The Black Sea Journal of Public and Social Science (BSJ Pub Soc Sci) is an open-access e-journal in the Social Sciences, published under a "Continuous Publication Model" by an editorial board since January 2018.
The Editorial Process for a manuscript to the BSJ Pub Soc Sci consists of a review, blind and peer-reviewed, followed by a section of the editor's decision to accept or decline the submission. If accepted during the review stage of the Editorial Process, the submission proceeds to the editing stage, which involves copyediting, layout, and proofreading. The manuscript is then scheduled for publication in an issue of the BSJ Pub Soc Sci.
Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement of the BSJ Pub Soc Sci are mainly based on the guidelines and recommendations published by recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and Council of Science Editors (CSE) policy statements.
The relevant duties and expectations of all parties involved in the publishing process, including editors, reviewers, authors, and others, are required to adhere to the publication ethics guidelines and malpractice statements defined below.
PUBLICATION AND AUTHORSHIP
All contributions conforming to the aim and scope of the BSJ Pub Soc Sci can be found here: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/bssocialscience/aim-and-scope. The authors are required to provide a statement describing how the manuscript aligns with the journal's content. All manuscripts should be written and organized following the guide for authors: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/bssocialscience/writing-rules. Manuscripts submitted to this journal must not be under simultaneous consideration by any other journal. Manuscripts submitted to this journal should not have been published elsewhere in identical or substantially similar form.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PUBLISHER
Publishing Behavior and Unethical Broadcast Handling
The publisher takes all necessary precautions to address alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, plagiarism, or close collaboration with editors to clarify the situation and amend the article in question, including clarification or withdrawal of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of the manuscript where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.
Involvement and Investigations
BSJ Pub Soc Sci is responsible for responding to all allegations or suspicions of manuscript misconduct raised by readers, reviewers, or other editors. Potential plagiarism or duplicate/redundant publication will be assessed by the journal. In other cases, the journal may request an investigation by the institution or other appropriate bodies. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE EDITORS
Publication Decisions
Editors will ensure that all submissions go through the fast and fair peer-review and editorial procedures. Editors take full responsibility for everything published in the BSJ Pub Soc Sci; hence, the acceptance or rejection of the submitted work is the Editor’s sole decision.
The Principle of Neutrality
Editors should evaluate manuscripts on originality, quality, and intellectual content and should not be affected by race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy, or any other influences. Editors should express concern and act immediately if they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors.
Confidentiality
The Editor and any other 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.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript will not be used by the editor or the members of the editorial board for their research purposes without the author's explicit written consent. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should require all contributors or authors to disclose relevant conflicts of interest. If conflicts of interest are revealed after publication, corrections must be published, or other appropriate actions should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS AND SECTION EDITORS
The chief editor(s) and section editors strive to meet the information needs of the referees, author(s), researchers, practitioners, and readers, to provide feedback when necessary, and to act by the principles of clarity in matters that require correction and explanation in the publication process. The chief editor(s) and section editors pay attention to the originality of the articles and their contribution to the scientific literature, readers, researchers, and practitioners when deciding whether to publish the articles. While making a positive or negative decision about the articles, the chief editor(s) and the section editors consider the original value of the articles, their contribution to the section, the validity and reliability of the research method, the clarity of the expression, and the purpose and scope of the journal. The chief editor (s) and section editors take the submitted articles to the preliminary evaluation stage, provided they do not have significant problems, consider positive referee suggestions, and only change the decisions made by the previous chief editor (s) and section editors if there are serious problems. Chief editor(s) and section editors implement the policies of blind refereeing and the evaluation process, which are among the journal publication policies, keep the referees' identities confidential, and ensure that each article is evaluated impartially and in due time. The chief editor(s) choose the section editors of the manuscript, and the section editors select the referees, taking into account their sections of expertise, and support the impartial and independent evaluations.
The editor-in-chief(s) and the section editors consider whether there is a conflict of interest between the editors, referees, and author(s) for the unbiased evaluation of the article. The editor-in-chief(s) and section editors continually search for a diverse range of reviewers and update their lists accordingly. Editor-in-chief(s) and section editors block reviews that do not follow academic etiquette and are unscientific. Editor-in-chief(s) and section editors ensure that the journal publication processes are by publication policies and guidelines, inform those in charge of the developments in publication policies, and prepare a training program when necessary. The chief editor(s) and section editors communicate effectively with everyone involved in the publication process and organize meetings at regular intervals. Editor-in-chief(s) and section editors protect personal data in the reviewed articles, ensuring the confidentiality of individual data for authors, referees, and readers. Chief editor(s) and section editors; They pay attention to the protection of human and animal rights in their articles, they care about documenting the explicit consent of the participants of the article, they reject the article when they do not have the approval of the ethics committee for the participants of the article, and permission for experimental research. Chief editor(s) and section editors: take action against misconduct. When complaints are made about misconduct, he conducts an objective investigation and shares the relevant findings. Editor-in-chief(s) and section editors ensure that errors, inconsistencies, or misdirection in articles are corrected. Editor-in-chief(s) and section editors protect the intellectual property rights of the published articles and defend the rights of the journal and the author(s) in case of infringement. In addition, they take the necessary measures to ensure that the content of the published articles does not violate the intellectual property rights of other publications, performing an authenticity and similarity check. Editor-in-chief(s) and section editors take into account the consistent criticisms of the articles published in the journal and give the right to reply to the author(s) of the criticized articles. Editor-in-chief(s) and section editors also consider studies with negative results. The chief editor(s) and section editors examine the complaints submitted to the journal and make the necessary explanations.
Editor-in-chief(s) and section editors cannot be appointed work editors for articles written by themselves, their family members, or their department colleagues, and cannot make any decisions about the work. For such works, the ordinary operation of the journal is carried out by a different editor who does not have a conflict of interest, and the process continues without including the editor with a conflict of interest in the evaluation process in the journal.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE REVIEWERS
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and may also assist the author(s) in improving the manuscript through the editorial communications. Black Sea Journal of Public and Social Science declares that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process must do a fair share of reviewing.
Promptness
Any selected reviewer 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 by the referees. Reviewers must not show or discuss any manuscripts received for review with others except as authorized by the Editor-in-Chief, who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances. This situation also applies to arbitrators who decline the invitation to review.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should clearly express their views, accompanied by supporting arguments.
References Check
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
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. This situation also applies to arbitrators who decline the invitation to review. 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 manuscript, and this situation should immediately inform the relevant editor.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS
Reporting standards
Authors are expected to have made reasonable attempts to check and validate results submitted to the journal for publication. This should be followed by the statement to the Editor that all data are real and authentic. Authors of research reports 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 manuscript. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Authors are required to provide information about the ethical aspects of their research, particularly when it involves human or animal participants or the use of biological materials. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study, along 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 ten years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data center), 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 submitted only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, this should be appropriately cited. Authors will submit only entirely original works, and will appropriately cite or quote the work and/or words of others. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work should also be cited. Plagiarism, such as copying another's manuscript as the author's own, paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), or claiming results from research conducted by others, and in all its forms, constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Journal editors must investigate suspicious cases of abuse. For this reason, to prevent authors from encountering undesirable situations such as duplication/plagiarism, a similarity report is automatically generated by the DergiPark system in the third step of the article upload process (this process may take some time; you will be notified by email to complete it). Our journal takes full-sentence and full-paragraph similarities into consideration. It ignores the spelling of words, phrases, terminology, etc. The article's similarity index (SI) must be below 30%, excluding the Introduction, Materials and Methods, and Reference sections. If it exceeds this rate, it will be considered a reason for rejecting the article, according to COPE's Retraction guidelines. In addition, if further plagiarism is discovered after the relevant article is published, it will be immediately withdrawn and removed from the website. In such a case, the relevant authors' articles will be deemed unsuitable for publication in the Black Sea Journal of Public and Social Science for five years.
Acknowledgment of Sources
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 the 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.
Authorship of the Paper
Author(s) who meet these authorship criteria should be listed in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content. Firstly, the author(s) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study. Secondly, the author(s) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content. Thirdly author(s) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All other 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 has been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list and verify that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
In general, a manuscript describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Manuscripts that have been published as copyrighted material elsewhere cannot be submitted. Additionally, manuscripts under review by the journal should not be resubmitted to copyrighted publications. However, by submitting a manuscript, the author(s) retain the rights to the published material. In case of publication, they permit the use of their work under a CC-BY-NC license [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/], which enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest and Financial Support
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).
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be preserved.
Peer Review
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. In the case of the first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and resubmitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
Fundamental Errors in Published Works
When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work, they should promptly notify the journal’s editors or publishers 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 the authors should promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.
Data Access and Retention
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 ten years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data center), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release. Authors should only submit papers on work that has been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and that complies with all relevant legislation.
