ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES
The Journal of Archaeology is a peer-reviewed journal published in accordance with the ethical principles and rules outlined below, aiming to disseminate high-quality and original scholarly articles in the fields of Prehistory, Protohistory, Classical Archaeology, Medieval Archaeology, Epigraphy, Numismatics, Anthropology, Archaeometry, and Ancient Archaeology.
All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Archaeology are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process and are published electronically with open access and no publication fees. The ethical responsibilities, roles, and duties of authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher are described below. These ethical principles and rules have been prepared in line with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/). Additionally, the journal’s approach to plagiarism and unethical practices is specified.
Authors
Manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Archaeology must present original research within the fields of Prehistory, Protohistory, Classical Archaeology, Medieval Archaeology, Epigraphy, Numismatics, Anthropology, Archaeometry, or Ancient Archaeology.
All sources used in the article (authors, online resources, personal communications, etc.) must be properly and accurately cited.
Authors must declare that the manuscript has not been submitted to another journal and must complete the Copyright Transfer Form (http://www.tisej.com).
Only those who have made significant intellectual contributions to the study should be listed as authors.
Any conflicts of interest related to the manuscript must be disclosed and explained.
Authors may be asked to provide raw data related to their research during the peer-review process; in such cases, they are expected to share the requested data with the editorial board. Authors are responsible for retaining the data of a published article for at least five years.
If an author discovers a significant error in their published work, they must promptly notify the editor and cooperate in the correction or retraction process.
Reviewers
All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Archaeology are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process, ensuring an impartial, objective, and independent assessment in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential.
Reviewers receive manuscripts through the journal’s editorial system and must complete a review form that includes their evaluation of the article’s relevance, quality, and publishability, as well as the reasoning behind their decision. The ethical responsibilities of reviewers are as follows:
Reviewers should evaluate only manuscripts that fall within their area of expertise.
Reviewers must accept only manuscripts with no conflicts of interest and should inform the editor immediately if any conflict arises.
Reviews must be conducted in a neutral and objective manner.
Reviewers must fill out the Reviewer Evaluation Form without identifying themselves, to maintain confidentiality.
The tone of reviewer comments must be respectful, professional, and constructive. Offensive or personal remarks are unacceptable and may result in the reviewer being asked to revise or retract their comments.
Reviewers must complete their evaluations within the specified time frame and comply fully with these ethical responsibilities.
Editors
Editors are required to adhere to the principles outlined in the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf) and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (https://publicationethics.org/files/u2/Best_Practice.pdf).
Editors bear full responsibility for all content published in the journal. Their main duties and ethical responsibilities include:
General Responsibilities
Editors must strive to improve the quality of the journal and contribute to its development.
Editors must uphold and defend authors’ freedom of expression.
Relations with Readers
Editors must ensure that non-peer-reviewed sections (e.g., letters to the editor, invited papers, conference announcements) are clearly identified.
Editors should ensure that published articles are relevant to the knowledge and interests of the journal’s readership.
Relations with Reviewers
Editors must assign manuscripts to reviewers whose expertise aligns with the content of the paper.
Editors must require reviewers to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before reviewing.
Editors must communicate clearly with reviewers regarding expectations and review procedures.
Editors must ensure that the double-blind review process is properly maintained.
Editors should evaluate reviewers based on timeliness and quality of their reports, maintain a reviewer database, and update it accordingly.
Reviewers providing poor-quality or discourteous reviews should be removed from the reviewer list.
The reviewer list must be regularly updated and expanded based on areas of expertise.
Relations with Authors
Editors must provide authors with clear and updated submission and formatting guidelines, along with sample templates.
Manuscripts should be evaluated for their significance, originality, and adherence to the journal’s requirements. If a submission is rejected at the initial stage, authors must be informed of the reasons clearly and impartially.
If revisions related to grammar, style, or formatting are needed, authors should be notified and given adequate time to make corrections.
Submission and acceptance dates must be stated in published articles.
Upon request, authors may be informed of the current status of their manuscript without compromising the anonymity of the review process.
Relations with the Editorial Board
Editors must communicate journal policies and expectations clearly to new board members.
Editors must ensure that board members are actively involved in improving the journal and are aware of their specific roles, including:
Supporting the journal’s development
Writing reviews or invited articles upon request
Reviewing and improving publication policies
Fulfilling operational responsibilities in journal management
Publisher
The Journal of Archaeology is published by the Turkish Cooperative Institution (Türk Kooperatifçilik Kurumu).
The publisher’s ethical responsibilities include:
Acknowledging that all decisions regarding manuscript evaluation and publication lie under the authority of the editorial team and peer-review process.
Ensuring open, electronic, and free access to the journal’s content through its website.
PLAGIARISM POLICY
Manuscripts submitted for publication must comply with the journal’s formatting rules as well as the grammar, punctuation, and language conventions of the language in which they are written.
After an initial evaluation by the editors and the editorial board, all submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software (currently iThenticate).
Bibliographies and references are excluded from similarity checks. The similarity index for the main text should not exceed 15% without proper citation.
If the similarity rate is between 10% and 20%, authors may be asked to revise the manuscript.
If the similarity rate exceeds 20% (without citations), the manuscript will be rejected.
Even if all sources are cited, a similarity rate above 35% may also result in rejection due to lack of originality or insufficient scholarly contribution.
Currently, authors are required to submit their similarity reports along with the manuscript. No word limit should be applied in the scanning preferences. Quoted material must remain within the scope of the scan, while only the “References” section may be excluded. The preferred software is iThenticate (not Turnitin).
Citation and Quotation Rules
Direct quotations must be enclosed in quotation marks, followed by a footnote indicating the full reference and page number.
Indirect quotations or paraphrased references must also be cited through footnotes for each instance (not cumulatively at the paragraph’s end).
The practice of compiling or blending phrases from multiple sources with limited citation (a “collage-style” citation) is considered unacceptable.
All references must be explicit and precise, allowing readers to trace the original source without ambiguity.
Permissions and Ethical Compliance
For manuscripts that include museum, library, archive, or excavation materials, or that feature images of original artifacts, documents, or sites, authors must obtain and submit written permission from the relevant institution. Failure to provide such documentation may result in rejection of the submission.
Submitted articles must comply with the Higher Education Council (YÖK) “Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive” and the COPE Ethical Guidelines.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy
Arkeoloji Dergisi (ADERG) adopts the principles of ethical, transparent, and responsible use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in all stages of academic writing, data analysis, and publication. This policy aims to preserve academic integrity, ensure scientific reliability, and define the ethical boundaries of technological innovation within the field of archaeology.
ADERG aligns its standards with the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) Ethical Guidelines on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.
Given the dynamic nature of AI technologies, this policy will be reviewed and updated periodically.

1. Principles for Authors
Academic Responsibility
Generative AI tools cannot be listed as an author or co-author under any circumstances.
The author(s) bear full responsibility for the content, accuracy, and originality of their work.
The use of AI tools does not diminish the author’s ethical, scientific, or intellectual accountability.
Misrepresentation, fabrication of authorship, or the submission of AI-generated content as original research constitutes a breach of publication ethics.

Transparency and Disclosure
Any use of generative AI tools during research design, data analysis, writing, or translation must be clearly disclosed.
The name, version, and specific purpose of each AI tool used must be explicitly stated.
Such disclosures should appear in an appropriate section of the manuscript (e.g., Methodology, Acknowledgments, or Ethical Statement).
All submissions must be accompanied by the Copyright Transfer, Author Contribution, and Generative AI Disclosure Form.
2. Principles for Editors
Editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts or related files to AI platforms under any condition.
The use of AI is limited to technical purposes (e.g., similarity checks or format screening) and must be approved by the editorial board.
In cases of uncertainty, editors must evaluate evidence through multiple means—such as author clarification and data verification—rather than relying solely on automated detection tools.
Editors are responsible for staying informed about developments in AI technologies and maintaining the journal’s ethical and scientific standards accordingly.
3. Principles for Reviewers
Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading manuscripts or any part of their content to AI platforms.
Review reports must be written by the reviewer; if AI tools are used for language or stylistic editing, this must be clearly disclosed.
Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, impartiality, and ethical responsibility throughout the evaluation process.
4. Acceptable Uses of Generative AI
Creating conceptual diagrams or explanatory illustrations;
Visualizing data or statistical information;
Language editing and grammar correction;
Translation between languages, provided human oversight is ensured.
5. Prohibited Uses of Generative AI
Producing or rewriting significant portions of the manuscript (abstract, introduction, discussion, conclusion, etc.);
Generating or interpreting research results using AI tools;
Creating fabricated, unverifiable, or non-existent references;
Preparing peer review reports or editorial decisions through AI.
6. Policy Violations
If undisclosed or inappropriate AI use is detected, the editorial process may be suspended or the manuscript rejected.
Post-publication violations may result in correction, retraction, or formal notice.
Repeated or deliberate violations may lead to a permanent submission ban for the author(s).