Duzce University Journal of Science and Technology

I. INTRODUCTION

Düzce University Journal of Science and Technology is published four times a year (January, April, July, and October) by the Institute of Science and Technology of Düzce University. This journal is an international platform that publishes research articles, topic reviews, letters, and compilations in the field of science. The language of the articles to be published in the journal is English. As of the January 2024 issue, the peer review process has been initiated for manuscripts written in English. Articles can only be submitted for review through the journal’s online system. To initiate the article review process, it is necessary to complete and upload the Copyright Form (click here) through the online system. Publications submitted to our journal are evaluated according to the double blind refereeing method. There is no submission fee for sending articles to our journal.

II. BEFORE YOU START

The Düzce University Journal of Science and Technology is a peer-reviewed journal that encompasses and supports the scientific method for published articles. Authors must write their studies with sufficient details and references to allow other researchers to replicate them. Fabricated or deliberately erroneous studies will not be accepted for ethical reasons. Authors must properly cite the works or sentences they use from others to ensure the originality of their work. Plagiarism exists in various forms, and no type of plagiarism is accepted as it is unethical.

Regarding the authors listed in the manuscript, only those who have made significant contributions during the preparation of the study should be included. If the study involves hazardous chemicals or procedures, authors must explicitly state this in the article. If human or animal subjects are used, authors must ensure that their study complies with all applicable laws, including animal and human rights regulations.

To ensure an ethical review process, the Düzce University Journal of Science and Technology ensures that article reviews are not influenced by authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or political beliefs. Additionally, editors and reviewers are prohibited from explicitly or implicitly pressuring authors to cite their own journals or publications. Any citation suggestions must be directly relevant to the author’s work.

All authors must disclose any financial or personal conflicts of interest, as well as any affiliations with other organizations. Authors should be aware that submitting their work to the journal implies that the related study has not been previously published elsewhere (in Turkish, English, or any other language) and is not under review for publication elsewhere.

Please ensure that your manuscript is in English (both American and British English are accepted, but a mix of both is not). Our journal does not provide English language editing services. When uploading the manuscript to the system, the authors’ names should not be included in the manuscript file. Once the article is accepted, a version including the author names should be prepared.

III. PREPARATION

Authors must download the template file click here and prepare their work using this file in Microsoft Office Word. The formats and styles for various structures (e.g., tables, figures, etc.) to be used in different sections of the manuscript are shown in the template.

Only one font type should be used throughout the manuscript. For special characters, Symbol and Arial fonts may be used. Words and phrases that need emphasis should be italicized. Authors are encouraged to use Microsoft Office Word’s spelling and grammar check features.

A concise and informative title should be selected for the article, and if possible, abbreviations and formulas should be avoided in the title. The abstract should be concise and factual, summarizing the research’s purpose, key findings, and main conclusions. The abstract should not exceed 250 words. Up to six keywords should be provided below the abstract. As seen in the template, the abstract and keywords must be English.

The study’s objective should be explained in the Introduction section with sufficient background literature. The methodology and experimental setup, along with necessary references, should be detailed to allow other researchers to replicate the study. The Results section should be clear and concise, and the Discussion section should explain the significance of the findings. If the study was financially supported by an institution, this should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section, along with gratitude to contributors.

Abbreviations that are not commonly known should be clearly defined when first mentioned. Ensure that abbreviations remain consistent throughout the manuscript. Units should also be consistent. Simple equations, such as F = m.a, can be presented in normal font, while more complex equations should not be presented as images. Instead, they should be created using MathType or the Microsoft Equation Editor. Note that exponents of “e” should be represented using “exp”.

Use a consistent font and size in figures, and number them sequentially according to their order in the manuscript. Avoid using low-resolution or low-quality files (e.g., GIF, BMP, PICT, WPG). If a figure consists of multiple parts, label them with lowercase letters in parentheses within the figure. Figure captions should be written below the figure, not inside it. Tables should be numbered sequentially and should not include vertical lines unless absolutely necessary. Each table must have a title positioned above the table.

The title of the References section should not be numbered. All reference elements should be 8 point font. Please use Regular and Italic styles to distinguish different fields as shown in the References section. List the reference elements alphabetically, one after the other.

In our journal, references should be prepared according to APA 7.

Plagiarism Policy

All submitted manuscripts are checked for similarity using iThenticate, Turnitin, or intihal.net. Manuscripts with a similarity rate exceeding 20% will not be considered for evaluation.

Number of Articles Published per Issue

As of the second issue of 2025, a maximum of 25 articles will be published per issue. Articles will be published in the order of acceptance.

Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

PUBLICATION ETHICS & MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

Düzce University Journal of Science and Technology (DUBITED) is dedicated to upholding the highest benchmarks of publication ethics and implements all essential protocols to preclude any form of editorial or scholarly malpractice. This declaration delineates the ethical expectations and standards to which all stakeholders in the publishing ecosystem comprising authors, editors, peer reviewers, and the Publisher must strictly conform. Our policies are fundamentally aligned with the comprehensive publication ethics frameworks established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).

It is our core mission to disseminate original research that contributes significant value to the global academic community, maintained at the peak of professional quality. We demand the same level of integrity from our contributors and evaluators. Essential to our objectives are the principles of transparency, originality, and ethical conduct by authors, alongside the impartial, objective, and confidential treatment of manuscripts by editors and reviewers. DUBITED remains committed to adhering to international best practices regarding ethical disputes, corrections, and retractions, ensuring legal oversight when required. In any instance of procedural conflict, the guidelines stipulated by COPE shall serve as the primary authority for resolution.

Ethical Oversight

In cases where research involves substances (chemicals), human participants, animal subjects, or specific procedures and equipment that carry inherent or unusual risks, it is the authors' obligation to explicitly disclose these hazards within the manuscript. This is essential to ensure full compliance with established ethical standards for studies involving animals and humans. Furthermore, authors are required to submit formal ethical clearance and legal documentation obtained from the appropriate institutional review boards or authorized legal bodies.

When a study incorporates proprietary information, sensitive business data, or specific marketing practices, authors must provide a comprehensive justification. This explanation should clearly articulate why such data must remain protected or, conversely, the rationale for its disclosure within the research context.

Intellectual Property

DUBİTED is dedicated to the protection of intellectual property, a responsibility shared by all authors, editors, and reviewers involved in the publication process.

By submitting a manuscript, the authors certify that the work and any accompanying materials are their exclusive intellectual property and that the copyright has not been assigned to any third party. They warrant that the submission is original and free from plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or citation manipulation, in full compliance with the authorship standards outlined herein. It is the authors' responsibility to obtain formal authorization from copyright holders for any previously published tables, figures, data, or text segments incorporated into their manuscript.

Ownership and Rights:

All versions of the manuscript—including drafts, revisions, and the final galley proofs—remain the intellectual property of the author(s). Copyright is retained by the authors, who hold the comprehensive right to modify, distribute, repost, or archive any version of their copyrighted work.

Confidentiality Requirements:

Authors agree to maintain the strict confidentiality of all editorial communications, reviewer reports, and comments. All evaluation feedback and reports remain the intellectual property of the respective reviewer or editor. Similarly, the editorial board and reviewers at DUBITED pledge to treat all manuscripts, revisions, and internal communications as confidential, ensuring they are not disclosed to unauthorized parties.

Duties and Responsibilities of Editor-in-Chief & Section Editors

Objectivity & Confidentiality

The Editor-in-Chief and section editors of DUBITED hold the responsibility for deciding which submitted manuscripts will be published in the journal. Throughout this evaluation, authors are treated equitably, and no distinction is made based on factors such as race, gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs, or citizenship. The editorial decision to accept, revise, or reject a manuscript is strictly grounded in the study's significance, originality, and clarity, as well as its relevance to the journal’s specific scope and coverage.

It is the duty of the Editor-in-Chief and section editors to ensure that all information related to a submitted manuscript remains confidential. Such details may only be disclosed to the corresponding author, potential or assigned reviewers, and the necessary publishing staff. During the entire peer-review process, editors are required to guarantee the confidentiality of all materials provided by the authors.

Conflicts of Interest & Disclosure

The editors of DUBITED shall not utilize any unpublished data or findings presented in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without obtaining the explicit, written authorization of the author(s). Any privileged information or innovative ideas acquired during the manuscript handling process must remain confidential and cannot be exploited for personal gain.

In the event that an editor faces a conflict of interest—whether through competitive, collaborative, or other personal/professional associations with the authors, corporations, or institutions related to the work they must recuse themselves from the evaluation process. In such instances, the Editor-in-Chief will appoint another qualified member of the editorial board to oversee the manuscript's review.

Editorial Procedures and Peer Review

Upon receipt by DUBITED, all manuscripts undergo a preliminary check by the Editor to ensure they are properly prepared and adhere to the journal's ethical guidelines. Submissions that violate the journal's ethical rules or fail to meet its professional standards will be rejected by the Editor-in-Chief prior to peer review. Manuscripts with technical or formatting deficiencies will be returned to the authors for correction and subsequent resubmission. The Editor-in-Chief may consult with associate editors to determine if a paper aligns with the journal's scope and maintains scientific rigor. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable at this stage may be rejected by the Editor-in-Chief without undergoing external review. For manuscripts that satisfy the initial criteria, the formal peer-review process is initiated by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned assistant editors.

The peer-review process involves at least two independent experts. DUBITED employs a single-blind review model, where the reviewers are aware of the authors' identities. Should there be a lack of consensus between the initial reviewer evaluations, the editor may appoint additional reviewers to provide further assessment reports.

In addition to external experts, journal assistant editors, editorial board members, and guest editors with relevant expertise may serve as reviewers. Potential reviewers suggested by authors may also be taken into consideration. To ensure impartiality, reviewers must not have co-authored any publications with the authors in the last three years and must not have any professional affiliation or collaboration with the authors' institutions.

Management of Unethical Behaviour(s)

In the event of an ethical complaint regarding a submitted manuscript or published article, editors and publishers must take prompt and proportionate action. All reported instances of unethical publishing behavior will be investigated, regardless of the time elapsed since publication. Engineering Perspective will apply COPE's best practice guidelines to ensure that all complaints are handled appropriately.

Duties and Responsibilities of Author(s)

Authorship of the Paper

Authorship of a manuscript submitted to DUBITED must be limited to individuals who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported research. All persons who have made a meaningful contribution to the project should be listed as co-authors. Other individuals who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project should be recognized in the acknowledgments or listed as contributors.

The corresponding author bears the responsibility of ensuring that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and have formally agreed to its submission for publication in the journal.

 Change of Authorship

DUBITED acknowledges the authors of an article as stated on the title page at the time of submission. It is the sole responsibility of the authors to provide the final and complete list of contributors. Any subsequent requests for modifications to the authorship such as the addition or removal of authors or changes in the author order are subject to formal editorial approval. The Editor-in-Chief will investigate such requests and proceed in strict accordance with the COPE flowcharts.

To request a change in authorship, a formal written request (letter) must be submitted to the Editor. This document must be signed by all original and proposed authors, confirming their collective agreement to the change. Please be advised that no authorship modifications can be made once a paper has been accepted for publication or has already been published. All requests regarding authorship must be finalized and approved before the formal acceptance decision of the manuscript.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors bear the full responsibility for the content, language, and originality of their submitted manuscripts. They must guarantee that the work is entirely their own, and any use of the research or words of others must be appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism manifests in various forms, ranging from "passing off" another's paper as one's own to copying or paraphrasing significant portions of another's work without attribution, or claiming credit for research results obtained by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is strictly inadmissible.

DUBITED maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism. This includes the unauthorized copying of text, ideas, images, or data from any other source—including the authors' own previous publications—without providing explicit credit to the original work.

The reuse of text copied from another source must be placed within quotation marks and accompanied by a citation of the original source. Furthermore, if a study's design, manuscript structure, or linguistic framework has been inspired by prior works, those works must be explicitly acknowledged and cited.

To uphold these standards, all submissions to DUBITED are screened for similarity using the industry-standard software iThenticate before entering the peer-review process. Detailed information can be found on the Plagiarism Policy page.

Acknowledgement of funding sources

All funding sources for the research reported in the manuscript should be acknowledged thoroughly at the end of the manuscript before references.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors are required to disclose any financial or personal relationships with individuals or organizations that could be perceived as inappropriately influencing the content of their research. It is mandatory to disclose all sources of financial support for the study and the preparation of the manuscript. Furthermore, the role of any sponsor(s) must be explicitly stated, specifically regarding their involvement in the study design; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; the writing of the report; and the decision to submit the article for publication.

In instances where the funding source(s) had no such involvement in these processes, a formal statement to this effect must be included in the manuscript. Authors must clearly declare any competing interests within the submission to ensure the integrity and transparency of the work published in DUBITED.

Reporting Standards

Authors submitting to DUBITED must provide a precise account of the research performed and an objective discussion regarding its significance. The underlying data must be accurately represented within the manuscript. A research paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit other researchers to replicate the study. Deliberately inaccurate or misleading statements constitute unethical behavior and are strictly unacceptable. Review articles and professional publications must also be precise, original, and objective, while editorial opinion pieces must be explicitly identified as such.

Acknowledgment of Sources

It is the authors' responsibility to ensure that the work of others is properly acknowledged and to cite publications that have influenced the nature of the reported research. Information obtained privately, such as through conversation or correspondence with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source. Similarly, information acquired during confidential services, such as reviewing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be utilized or reported without the express written authorization of the authors of the work involved.

Data Access & Retention

Authors may be requested to provide the raw data associated with their manuscript for the editorial review process. In all cases, authors should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable period following the publication of their work to ensure transparency and accountability.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

Manuscripts submitted to DUBITED must not be under consideration by any other journal simultaneously. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is considered unethical publishing behavior. Furthermore, authors must guarantee that the article has not been previously published in any other venue.

Principal Errors in Published Studies

If an author identifies a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher. The author must then cooperate fully with the editor to facilitate the withdrawal or correction of the paper as necessary to maintain the integrity of the scientific record.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

If a research project involves chemicals, experimental procedures, or specialized equipment that carry inherent or unusual hazards, the authors are required to clearly identify these risks within the manuscript.

Furthermore, if the study involves animal or human subjects, the authors must ensure the manuscript includes a formal statement confirming that all procedures were conducted in strict compliance with relevant national laws and institutional guidelines. It must also be stated that the appropriate institutional ethics committee(s) has approved the research. For studies involving human participants, authors must include a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained for all experimentation. The privacy rights of human subjects must be strictly protected at all times.

For research involving human subjects, the authors bear the responsibility for ensuring that the work has been performed in accordance with the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki).

Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers

DUBITED is committed to providing transparent peer-review policies, and reviewers are expected to perform their evaluations in an ethical and accountable manner. The integrity of the peer-review process relies heavily on the trust and voluntary contribution of the academic community. Peer reviewers, who fulfill a central and indispensable role in this system, must act with a high sense of responsibility and ethics.

Maintaining open communication between the journal and its reviewers is vital for ensuring that reviews are consistent, impartial, and completed in a timely fashion. For individuals without prior experience in peer review, we strongly recommend consulting COPE’s ethical guidelines for peer reviewers to ensure compliance with international standards.

Disclosure & Conflict of Interest

It is imperative that reviewers of DUBITED declare all potential competing or conflicting interests. Should a reviewer be uncertain whether a potential conflict might impede their ability to conduct an impartial evaluation, they are encouraged to raise the matter with the editor. Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious in nature.

Reviewers should refrain from accepting a review if they are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors, or if they have served as a mentor, mentee, close collaborator, or co-grantee within the last three years. Furthermore, individuals should not agree to review a manuscript solely for the purpose of viewing its content without a genuine intention of submitting a report. Similarly, reviewers should decline to evaluate a manuscript that is substantially similar to one they have prepared themselves or reviewed for another journal.

Timeliness and Responsiveness

It is a matter of professional courtesy to respond to an invitation to peer review within a reasonable timeframe, even if you are unable to undertake the evaluation. If you have been authorized to review a specific manuscript for DUBITED, you should only accept the assignment if you are confident in your ability to return the report within the proposed or mutually agreed-upon timeframe.

 Should your circumstances change, preventing you from fulfilling the original agreement or requiring an extension, you are obligated to inform the journal immediately. If you must decline a review, it is advisable to suggest alternative experts based on their technical proficiency, provided such suggestions are made without any personal bias or intention to influence the final outcome (positive or negative).

Contribution, Confidentiality, Objectivity, and Accountability Standards

Reviewers are the primary contributors to the quality and integrity of DUBITED as a peer-reviewed journal. The editors request a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses. The DUBITED manuscript evaluation form allows reviewers to provide feedback directly to the authors and submit confidential comments to the editor that are not visible to the authors. Reviewers are also required to provide a recommendation for acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Any recommendation must be consistent with the detailed comments provided in the review.

If you have not evaluated the entire article, please specify which sections you have reviewed. It is essential that your comments and suggestions to the editor align with your report to the authors. The majority of the feedback should be included in the report accessible to the authors. Confidential comments to the editor must not contain defamatory or unfounded accusations. The editors of DUBITED reserve the right to disregard inconsistent, contradictory, or subjective referee reports and to invite new reviewers if necessary.

Reviewers who feel unqualified to evaluate a received manuscript must promptly notify the editor and decline the invitation. As a responsible reviewer, it is your duty to prepare the report yourself. All manuscripts received for review must be treated as strictly confidential documents. DUBITED does not permit reviewers to share manuscripts with individuals who have not been formally assigned to the review process.

It is imperative to refrain from making disparaging or unjustified criticisms of a competitor’s work mentioned in the manuscript. Reviewers must not suggest that authors add citations to the reviewer’s (or an associate’s) work solely to increase citation counts or visibility; any such suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological justifications. Furthermore, reviewers must not intentionally extend the review period by delaying their submission or requesting superfluous supplementary information. In cases where an editor processes a manuscript and elects to conduct the review themselves, they must do so transparently and not under the pretense of an anonymous supplementary reviewer.

Action in Suspicion of Ethical Violations

Should you become aware of any irregularities concerning research and publication ethics, please report them directly to the Editor-in-Chief of DUBITED. For instance, you may have concerns that improper conduct occurred during the writing and submission of the research, or you may observe significant similarities between the manuscript and a simultaneous submission to another journal or a previously published article.

 In the event of these or any other ethical concerns, please contact the editor immediately and refrain from conducting your own independent investigation. While it is expected that you collaborate with the journal in a confidential manner, you should not pursue further research into the matter unless the journal specifically requests additional information or expert advice.

Data Sharing Policy

DUBITED is dedicated to fostering a more transparent and collaborative research environment. Our goal is to accelerate the discovery of research findings, enhance reproducibility, and ensure the integrity of data, methodology, and reporting standards.

While sharing data is not mandatory, we strongly encourage authors of articles published in the journal to share their research data. This should include, but is not limited to, raw data, processed data, software, algorithms, protocols, methods, and materials. It is recommended that authors share their research data in a relevant public data repository. They should also include a data availability statement linking to the data. If it is not possible to share the data, the statement should confirm the reasons for this restriction. Finally, the data should be formally cited within the research.

Complaints and Appeals

Formal complaints regarding any aspect of the journal's processes should be directed via email to the Editor-in-Chief (Prof. Dr. Suat SARIDEMİR) (suatsaridemir@duzce.edu.tr) or the journal secretariat. To ensure a swift and thorough resolution, we request that complainants provide comprehensive details regarding the nature of their grievance.

DUBITED maintains a transparent and robust procedure for addressing complaints filed against the journal, its editorial team, the board, or the publisher. Every reported case is promptly forwarded to the relevant authorities for investigation. The scope of eligible complaints includes, but is not limited to:

Concerns regarding the editorial and peer-review process.

Instances of identified citation manipulation.

Allegations of unfair or biased practices by editors or reviewers.

Any perceived impropriety in the scholarly workflow.

All complaint cases are processed in strict accordance with the best practice guidelines established by COPE.

Allegation of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct encompasses activities such as the fabrication or falsification of data, manipulation of citations, and plagiarism during the production, review, or reporting of research results and manuscript preparation. DUBITED holds its editors responsible for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record in the event that authors are found to be involved in such misconduct or other serious irregularities.

In instances of suspected misconduct, the Editors and the Editorial Board will follow the best practices established by COPE to resolve complaints and address any malpractice in a fair and transparent manner. This process involves a thorough investigation of the allegations by the editorial team. Should a submitted manuscript be found to contain such misconduct, it will be summarily rejected. If the misconduct is identified in an already published paper, a formal retraction will be issued and linked to the original article. The initial phase of any investigation is to verify the allegation, evaluate its alignment with the definition of research misconduct, and determine if the parties making the allegations have any relevant conflicts of interest.

When potential scientific misconduct or significant research irregularities are identified, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who is then required to provide a detailed response on behalf of all co-authors. Once this response is evaluated, the journal may seek further input from independent experts or statisticians. In cases where misconduct is deemed unlikely to have occurred, clarifications or additional analyses may be published as letters to the editor, often accompanied by a formal correction notice.

By taking decisive action regarding concerns of scientific misconduct, DUBITED continues to fulfill its mission of safeguarding the validity and integrity of the scholarly record. While we appreciate the diligence authors apply to their manuscripts, published articles may occasionally be withdrawn or deleted for scientific reasons. Such actions are taken only in exceptional circumstances. In these cases, corrections, retractions, or apologies are conducted according to the highest publishing standards to maintain the authority and completeness of our electronic archives for the benefit of researchers and librarians.

Article Retraction

DUBITED is dedicated to maintaining the transparency and accuracy of the scholarly record. Under certain conditions, it may become necessary to formally retract a published article. The decision to retract is guided by the criteria established in the COPE Retraction Guidelines, which include the following:

Unreliable Findings: Clear evidence that the results are untrustworthy, whether due to significant honest errors (e.g., experimental or mathematical miscalculations) or intentional misconduct (e.g., data fabrication or image falsification).

Plagiarism: The manuscript contains stolen ideas or text without proper attribution.

Redundant Publication: The findings have been previously released elsewhere without adequate disclosure, permission, or justification.

Unauthorized Use: The research incorporates data or materials used without proper authorization.

Legal and Ethical Breaches: Issues involving copyright infringement, privacy violations, libel, or unethical research practices.

Systemic Manipulation: The article was published as a result of a compromised or fraudulent peer-review process.

Undisclosed Conflicts: A failure by the authors to reveal a significant competing interest that would have substantially influenced the editorial decision or the interpretation of the work.

Procedural Steps for Retraction:

• The editorial office is formally alerted to a potential case requiring retraction.
• Following COPE protocols, the editor initiates an inquiry, which includes soliciting and evaluating a formal response from the authors.
• Before a final determination, the editor aggregates all evidence. If necessary, a specialized Ethics Advisory Board may be formed from the Editorial Board to ensure a consistent approach aligned with international standards.
• The conclusion of the investigation and the final decision are communicated directly to the authors.
• A formal retraction statement is published online and included in the subsequent printed issue of the journal.

It is important to emphasize that while authors retain the copyright to their work, this does not grant them the unilateral right to retract an article post-publication. Safeguarding the integrity of the scientific archive remains the primary priority, and all cases will be managed according to COPE's established framework.

Article Correction

Upon acceptance for publication, DUBITED provides authors with the final version of their manuscript for a definitive review. It is the responsibility of the authors to exercise the highest level of diligence during this proofreading stage to ensure all technical and textual details are accurate.

Modifying or correcting an article after it has been formally published is generally discouraged to maintain the stability of the scientific record. However, DUBITED may issue a formal correction if a minor portion of an otherwise reliable study contains erroneous or misleading data due to an honest mistake. This also applies to significant errors in the author or contributor lists, such as the omission of a deserving author or the inclusion of individuals who do not meet authorship criteria.

DUBITED classifies these updates into three categories:

• Publisher Correction (Erratum): Issued to notify readers of significant errors introduced by the journal's editorial or production staff. These are typically production-related mistakes that negatively impact the scientific integrity of the article or the reputation of the authors and the journal.
• Author Correction (Corrigendum): Issued to inform the community of substantial errors made by the authors that affect the publication’s record, its scientific validity, or the professional standing of those involved.
• Addendum: A supplementary contribution from the authors intended to clarify inconsistencies, expand upon existing findings, or provide an essential update to the information presented in the original article.

The determination of whether a correction is warranted and which form it should take—is made by the journal’s Editors, often in consultation with the Editorial Board or reviewers. While handling editors will contact the authors for clarification regarding potential errors, the final authority regarding the necessity and type of correction rests solely with the DUBITED editorial office.

Article Removal or Replacement

Under extraordinary circumstances, DUBITED may find it necessary to remove a published article from its online platform. This rare action is reserved for cases where an article is demonstrably defamatory, violates the legal rights of third parties, is subject to a formal court order, or presents a severe risk to public health.

In such instances, the article’s metadata—including the title and author information—will remain in the journal’s archive to maintain the integrity of the record. However, the full text will be replaced with a formal notice indicating that the content has been removed due to legal or ethical necessities.

In situations where a study is found to pose a significant health risk, the authors may opt to retract the flawed original and replace it with a corrected, verified version. In these cases, the journal will adhere to its standard retraction procedures. However, the retraction notice will explicitly include a direct link to the corrected, republished manuscript along with a transparent history of the document’s revisions.

Publication Policy

• It is a peer-reviewed journal published electronically four times a year (January, April, July, and October).
• Articles are published after being evaluated by at least three referees.
• In our journal, referee evaluation is applied according to the blind peer review system.
• Our journal works with an open-access system. Articles published in journal issues are accessed free of charge. No fee is charged at the stage of submitting an article to our journal or at the stage of printing.
• As of the 2nd issue of 2025, a maximum of "25" articles can be published in each issue. Articles will be published in order of acceptance.