Article Template

Copyright Form

Similarity Report

The publishing processes implemented by the EREN Journal of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Bitlis Eren University serve as a foundation for the impartial and respected development and distribution of knowledge. These processes directly reflect the quality of the work conducted by authors and the institutions supporting them. Peer-reviewed articles are those that embody and support the scientific method. In this context, it is crucial for all stakeholders in the process (authors, readers, researchers, publishers, reviewers, and editors) to adhere to ethical standards. The EREN Journal of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Bitlis Eren University expects all stakeholders to uphold the following ethical responsibilities within the framework of publishing ethics.

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential cornerstone in the development of a coherent and respected knowledge network. It directly reflects the quality of work by authors and their supporting institutions. Peer-reviewed articles shape and support scientific methods. Therefore, agreeing on the expected ethical behavior standards is important for all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, journal editors, reviewers, and publishers.

1. Authorship
The reference list must be complete and accurate.
Plagiarism and falsification of data must be avoided.
Authors should not attempt to publish the same research in multiple journals and must adhere to research and publication ethics.
Actions violating research and publication ethics include:
Plagiarism: Presenting others' ideas, methods, data, applications, writings, figures, or works as one's own, without proper attribution according to scientific standards.
Fabrication: Creating data that do not exist, or altering or modifying an article based on false data, reporting or publishing it as factual, or presenting research that was not actually conducted as if it were.
Falsification: Distorting research records and data, using methods, equipment, and materials that were not used in the research, excluding data that does not support the research hypothesis, manipulating data or results to fit a theory or assumption, or altering results to favor personal or institutional interests.
Duplicate Publication: Presenting the same results from a study as separate works for academic advancement.
Salami Publication: Splitting a study’s results inappropriately into multiple publications that distort the integrity of the research, without proper cross-referencing.
Unjust Authorship: Including individuals who did not contribute significantly to the research as authors, excluding those who made significant contributions, changing the author order without justification, removing the names of contributors during publication or in later editions, or adding authors based on influence rather than contribution.
Other types of ethical violations include:

Failing to clearly acknowledge the contributions of supporting individuals, institutions, or organizations in research publications.
Not adhering to ethical guidelines in research involving humans or animals.
Disrespecting patient rights in published work.
Sharing unpublished manuscript information with others before publication when serving as a reviewer.
Using resources, facilities, or equipment allocated for scientific research for purposes unrelated to the research.
Making unsupported, baseless, or intentional allegations of ethical violations (YÖK Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Regulation, Article 8).

2. Responsibilities of Authors
All authors must make a significant contribution to the research.
A declaration must be made that all data in the article are genuine and original.
Authors are responsible for ensuring any necessary corrections or withdrawals are made promptly.

3. Responsibilities of Reviewers
Evaluations must be impartial.
Reviewers must not have conflicts of interest with the authors, research funders, or other parties involved.
Reviewers must indicate any relevant published works that have not been cited in the manuscript.
Reviewed articles must be kept confidential.

4. Responsibilities of Editors
Editors have full responsibility and authority to accept or reject a manuscript.
Editors must not have conflicts of interest regarding the articles they accept or reject.
Only manuscripts that contribute to the field should be accepted.
Editors must support the publication of corrections or retractions when errors are found.
Editors must maintain the confidentiality of reviewers’ identities and prevent issues like plagiarism or falsification of data.
The peer review process is central to the success of scientific publishing. Maintaining and improving this process is part of our commitment. The EREN Journal of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Bitlis Eren University is obligated to assist the academic community in all cases related to publishing ethics, particularly in situations involving suspected or confirmed plagiarism or duplicate publications.

Reporting Issues or Ethical Violations
If a reader notices a significant error or misrepresentation in a published article or has any complaints regarding editorial content (such as plagiarism, duplicate articles, etc.), they can file a complaint by sending an email to nulutas@beu.edu.tr. We welcome complaints as opportunities for improvement and aim to respond quickly and constructively.

Plagiarism Detection
Articles submitted for publication in the EREN Journal of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Bitlis Eren University undergo a double-blind peer review process by at least two reviewers. Additionally, a specialized plagiarism detection program (Turnitin) is used to ensure that articles have not been previously published and do not contain plagiarized content.

Review Process
Articles that pass the initial review are sent to two reviewers for evaluation.

If both reviewers approve, the article moves forward in the publication process.
If both reviewers reject the article, it is rejected.
If one reviewer rejects and the other suggests major revisions, the article is rejected.
If both reviewers suggest major revisions, the article is sent back to the same reviewers after revisions.
If one reviewer rejects and the other approves or suggests minor revisions, the article is sent to a third reviewer.