Compliance with International and National Ethical Standards
Bayburt University Journal of Science and Engineering (BUFBD) is committed to the principles of scientific integrity, impartiality, transparency, accountability, and academic ethics in publishing original research conducted in the fields of engineering and natural sciences. All submission, evaluation, peer-review, editorial decision-making, and publication processes carried out by the journal are conducted in accordance with research and publication ethics.
In its research and publication ethics procedures, BUFBD takes into account the principles of ethical publishing, authorship, transparency, and best practices issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA). In studies involving human participants, the principles of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki are observed, as appropriate to the nature of the study. At the national level, the journal adheres to the Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive and the ethical principles of ULAKBİM TR Dizin. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are deemed to have been prepared in accordance with the principles of research and publication ethics. Manuscripts found to be in violation of ethical standards are not considered for evaluation. If an ethical violation is identified after publication, corrections, retractions, or other necessary editorial actions may be implemented in accordance with COPE guidelines.
Research Ethics
All manuscripts submitted to BUFBD must be based on research conducted in accordance with the principles of scientific integrity, data reliability, participants’ rights, animal welfare, protection of personal data, permissions, and informed consent. The design of the research, the data collection process, analyses, reporting, and presentation of results must comply with the principles of accuracy, transparency, reproducibility, and ethical responsibility.
For all research requiring ethics committee approval, such approval must be obtained from the relevant institution or organization before the research begins. Research requiring ethics committee approval primarily includes the following:
Qualitative or quantitative research requiring the collection of data from participants through surveys, questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, observations, experiments, or similar methods
Research in which humans, or human-derived materials/data, are used for experimental or other scientific purposes
Clinical or experimental studies conducted on humans
Research conducted on animals or studies involving the use of animal-derived materials/data
Retrospective data analyses assessed within the scope of legislation on the protection of personal data
Studies involving the use of personal, institutional, commercial, private, or sensitive data
Research involving the use of scales, questionnaires, datasets, photographs, images, tables, figures, or similar materials belonging to others
Studies requiring permission from an institution, organization, field site, laboratory, archive, or private database
The name of the ethics committee, the date of approval, and the approval/reference number must be clearly stated in the Methods section of the manuscript and also on the first or last page of the manuscript. The ethics committee approval document must be uploaded to the system during manuscript submission. In research involving human participants, participants must be informed about the purpose, method, scope, potential risks of the research, and how the data will be used; informed consent must be obtained on the basis of voluntary participation. Participants’ identifying information must be kept confidential, and personal data must be processed, stored, and reported in accordance with the Law on the Protection of Personal Data and the relevant legislation. In research involving children, legally incapacitated individuals, or vulnerable groups, approval from a legal representative/guardian and additional ethical protection principles must be observed. Research involving human participants must be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. In studies involving animal experiments or animal-derived materials, approval must be obtained from the relevant ethics committee; reporting must be based on the principles of animal welfare, reduction of pain and distress, justification of the methods used, and compliance with ARRIVE/ICLAS guidelines. In research involving field studies, environmental sampling, plant material, industrial data, or institutional data, the necessary legal, institutional, or special permissions must be obtained, and information regarding these permissions must be stated in the manuscript. Authors are responsible for documenting that they hold the rights to use the data, materials, scales, questionnaires, images, software, or third-party content used in the research, or that they have obtained the necessary permissions. If any procedures involved in the conduct of the research may pose risks of harm to participants, animals, the environment, institutions, or third parties, such risks must be clearly stated and the necessary precautions must be taken.
Publication Ethics
Manuscripts submitted to BUFBD must be original scholarly works that have not been previously published and are not under simultaneous consideration by another journal. Each manuscript submitted to the journal constitutes a declaration by the authors that they have complied with the principles of research and publication ethics. The following acts are considered violations of publication ethics:
Plagiarism
Self-plagiarism
Fabrication, falsification, or manipulation of data
Manipulation of images, figures, tables, or visual materials
Duplicate or redundant publication
Salami slicing / salami publication
Improper authorship, gift authorship, ghost authorship, or guest authorship
Citation manipulation
Intentional omission or misleading presentation of references
Concealment of conflicts of interest
Attempts to manipulate the peer-review or editorial process
Conducting research without obtaining the necessary approvals or permissions in studies requiring ethics committee approval, informed consent, or legal/special permission
Unauthorized use of data, scales, questionnaires, photographs, figures, tables, software, or other materials belonging to others
Violation of copyright or intellectual property rights
Authors must cite all sources used in their manuscripts accurately, completely, and appropriately. Data, ideas, methods, images, or materials obtained from other individuals or institutions must not be used without proper attribution.
If a manuscript has previously been presented as a conference paper, derived from a thesis, or supported within the scope of a project, this must be clearly stated in the manuscript.
The methods, data, analyses, and findings used in the study must be presented with sufficient clarity to ensure the reproducibility of the research. If requested by the editors or reviewers, authors must be prepared to provide the raw data, analysis files, permission documents, or additional information related to the study. Restrictions concerning confidentiality, personal data, and copyright are reserved.
Editors' Ethical Duties and Responsibilities
Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts in terms of scientific content, originality, scope of the journal, and ethical standards. Editors act impartially during the evaluation process regardless of authors’ gender, language, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, or political views.
Editors assign at least two independent reviewers who are experts in their fields and from different institutions for each manuscript and ensure that the evaluation process is conducted within the framework of confidentiality. The identities of reviewers and authors are kept confidential.
Editors verify the existence of ethics committee approval for studies involving human or animal subjects. Manuscripts lacking ethics approval are not considered for evaluation. Editors take necessary measures in cases of conflicts of interest and ensure that the evaluation process is conducted fairly. Editors carry out correction, retraction, or removal procedures in cases of plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or other ethical violations.
Reviewers’ Ethical Duties and Responsibilities
Reviewers are independent experts who contribute scientifically to the editorial decision-making process. Reviews should be conducted considering the scientific quality, originality, and contribution of the manuscript.
Reviewers should only accept manuscripts within their area of expertise. If a manuscript falls outside their expertise, reviewers should inform the editor and withdraw from the evaluation process.
Reviewers must conduct evaluations impartially and should not be influenced by factors such as religion, language, race, gender, ethnicity, institution, or author identity. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and should not share manuscript-related information with third parties. Such information should not be retained after the evaluation process is completed.
Reviewers should inform the editor if they identify any situation that violates the blind peer review process. Reviewers should also withdraw from the evaluation process if they detect a conflict of interest. Reviews should be prepared using constructive, scientific, and respectful language, avoiding personal criticism. Reviewers should complete their evaluations within the assigned time.
Authors’ Ethical Duties and Responsibilities
Authors are responsible for preparing their manuscripts originally and in accordance with scientific ethical principles. Submitted manuscripts must not have been previously published or be under consideration elsewhere simultaneously.
The author list should include only those who have made significant contributions to the design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation of the study. Individuals who did not contribute should not be listed as authors. Changes in authorship cannot be made without editorial approval.
Authors must properly and accurately cite all sources used. Plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, and duplicate publication are considered ethical violations. Ethics committee approval must be obtained for studies involving human or animal subjects and stated in the manuscript. Participant confidentiality must be protected.
Authors are responsible for obtaining necessary permissions for the use of data, scales, figures, and other materials. Authors must declare any financial or institutional conflicts of interest. Authors must provide raw data upon request by editors or reviewers. Authors are also responsible for cooperating with the editor in correcting or retracting their work if a significant error is identified after publication.
Responsibilities of the Publisher and Journal Management
BUFBD is committed to safeguarding editorial independence, academic impartiality, and scientific quality throughout its publication processes. Editorial decisions are made independently of any publisher-related, institutional, commercial, or political influences. The publisher and journal management support the transparent implementation of the journal’s ethical principles, publication policies, open access approach, and archiving processes. In cases involving allegations of scientific misconduct, plagiarism, copyright infringement, citation manipulation, conflicts of interest, or other ethical violations, the journal conducts the necessary investigations and procedures in cooperation with the editors.
Plagiarism Policy
For manuscripts submitted to BUFBD through the DergiPark system, an automatic similarity report is generated via intihal.net. The similarity report is evaluated by the editorial office not solely on the basis of the numerical similarity rate, but also by taking into account citation practices, the use of quotations, unavoidable methodological expressions, standard technical terminology, matches outside the reference list, and potential ethical risks. The overall similarity rate must not exceed 30%. Manuscripts exceeding this threshold are not considered for evaluation. Even if the similarity rate is below the threshold, the editorial office reserves the right to return or reject the manuscript, or to request additional clarification, if violations of citation and quotation rules, block or clustered similarity, unattributed borrowing, or ethical risks are identified. Where deemed necessary, the editorial office may conduct a further review using different similarity-detection software. If plagiarism or a serious similarity violation is identified after publication, corrections, retractions, or other editorial actions are implemented in accordance with COPE guidelines.
Conflict of Interest and Funding Statement
Authors, reviewers, and editors are required to disclose any financial, personal, institutional, academic, or commercial conflicts of interest that may affect the evaluation or interpretation of the work. Authors must declare all financial support received during the conduct of the research, the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, the writing of the manuscript, or its submission for publication, as well as the role of the supporting institutions. If there is no financial support or conflict of interest, this must also be clearly stated in the manuscript. Reviewers and editors must withdraw from the evaluation process for manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest. For manuscripts authored by editors, editorial board members, or individuals affiliated with the journal, the evaluation process is conducted through an independent editorial procedure.
Copyright, Data, and Material Use
Authors are responsible for obtaining the necessary permissions for all third-party materials used in their manuscripts, including scales, questionnaires, datasets, software, tables, figures, photographs, maps, images, drawings, and similar materials.
Such materials must be properly cited, and any cases requiring permission must be clearly stated in the manuscript. Authors acknowledge that they have the legal right to use the data and materials included in their work.
Copyright and intellectual property regulations must be observed in the use of intellectual and artistic works, images, databases, institutional archives, or private datasets.
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools
Artificial intelligence and AI-assisted tools may not be listed as authors. Authorship is a human responsibility that requires scholarly contribution, responsibility, accountability, and approval of the final manuscript.
Authors may use artificial intelligence tools during manuscript preparation only as assistive tools for language editing, proofreading, stylistic improvement, or technical support. Artificial intelligence tools cannot assume responsibility for scientific content and must not be used for data fabrication, source generation, alteration of analysis results, visual manipulation, or unethical purposes.
If an artificial intelligence tool has been used, the name of the tool and the purpose of its use must be clearly declared in the manuscript. All content generated or edited by artificial intelligence must be checked by the authors; the authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and ethical compliance of the manuscript.
Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscript texts, raw data, or reviewer reports to public or unsecured artificial intelligence systems in a manner that would violate the confidentiality of the evaluation process.
Correction and Retraction Policy
BUFBD considers the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of the published scholarly record to be among its fundamental publishing responsibilities. If an error, omission, or any situation contrary to research and publication ethics is identified in a published article, the editorial office conducts the necessary investigation. If the error does not affect the scientific conclusions of the article, a correction may be published. In cases of serious error or ethical violation that affect the reliability or validity of the work, the article may be retracted. In these processes, the guidelines issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly the COPE Retraction Guidelines, are taken into consideration.
Retraction of a published article is a serious editorial action undertaken only in exceptional circumstances to preserve the reliability, integrity, and accuracy of the scholarly record. This process may be initiated when a scientific error or misleading information that significantly affects the reliability of the article’s findings or conclusions is identified; when data fabrication, data falsification, data manipulation, or fraud is detected; or when plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, or prior publication of the same work elsewhere is established. Similarly, the article retraction process may also be applied in cases where serious deficiencies are identified regarding ethics committee approval, informed consent, data-use permission, or other required legal/special permissions; where violations concerning copyright, intellectual property, or the use of third-party materials are detected; or where any other circumstance contrary to research and publication ethics emerges.
The decision to retract an article is made following an investigation conducted by the editor-in-chief and the editorial board. Where deemed necessary, authors may be requested to provide explanations, documents, raw data, or additional information; the institutions with which the authors are affiliated or relevant organizations may also be contacted.
Retracted articles are not completely removed from the journal archive. In order to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record, the article page and the relevant file clearly indicate that the article has been retracted. The reason for retraction is made available to readers, and the retraction notice is linked to the relevant article.
When errors or omissions are identified in a published article that do not completely invalidate the scientific conclusions but need to be clarified to ensure that readers are accurately informed, a correction may be published. Corrections may be published in two forms, depending on the source of the error:
Erratum: Published to correct errors arising from the publication process, typesetting, technical formatting, or editorial procedures.
Corrigendum: Published to correct author-related errors or omissions.
Requests for correction may be submitted to the journal’s editorial office by authors, editors, reviewers, or readers. The editorial board evaluates the request and decides whether the publication of a correction is necessary. Published corrections remain permanently available in the journal archive in connection with the relevant article.
Open Access and Publication Fee Policy
BUFBD is an open-access journal. All content published in the journal is made freely available. No fees are charged to authors for the submission, evaluation, or publication processes of manuscripts submitted to the journal.
Peer Review Process Timeline
Additional time given for all assigned users, when editor extends the due date: 5 days
Time given to make an action when a new submission arrives before becoming overdue before becoming overdue: 10 days
Time given for the secretary to take an action in "with secretary" status (before becoming overduedays): 10 days
Time given for the editor to assign an editor in "checked" status before becoming overdue: 10 days
Time given for the assigned editor(s) to take an action in "with editor" status before becoming overdue: 10 days
Time given for the assigned editors to take an action in "ready for decision" status before becoming overdue: 7 days
Time given for the editor to make a decision before becoming overdue: 7 days
Time given for the copy editor, language editor, statistics editor and proofreader to complete the task before becoming overdue: 15 days
Time given for the layout editor to complete the task before becoming overdue: 15 days
Time given when resubmitted to the author: 15 days
Time given to the author for minor revision: 15 days
Time given to the author for major revision: 15 days
The time given for the reviewer(s) to respond to the invitation before becoming overdue: 7 days
Time given for the reviewer to review the article after accepting the invitation before becoming overdue: 15 days
The periods specified here are the maximum periods, and completing the evaluation process in a short time is one of the primary principles of journal administration.
All papers in this journal are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.