All scientific manuscripts submitted to the Eskişehir Medical Journal must adhere to the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the International Standards for Editors and Authors set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
http://www.icmje.org/conflicts-of-interest/

https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf

In cases of ethical violations such as duplicate publication, plagiarism, or fabricated data, the COPE guidelines are considered the primary reference.

https://publicationethics.org/files/Full_set_of_flowcharts_Turkey_2017%20%281%29.pdf


Articles are screened using an Academic Plagiarism Detection Program (intihal.net)

http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html

1. Authors
Authors must comply with all authorship principles and conflict of interest disclosures detailed in Sections IIA and B of this document.

a. Predatory or Fake Journals
The rapid increase in the number of so-called "scientific journals," which are primarily profit-driven and publish all submissions for a fee without any editorial filtering, has led to the emergence of predatory journals. Preserving certain standards in scientific publishing has become more critical than ever. Therefore, our journal adheres to the recommendations and standards of organizations such as ICMJE, COPE, and WAME..

2. Journals
a. Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted to journals are considered the private and confidential property of the authors. Authors may be harmed if any details or the entirety of a submission are disclosed prematurely.
Therefore, editors must not share the content or status of submissions, including reviews or final decisions, with anyone outside the authors and reviewers. Requests from third parties for manuscripts or for use in legal proceedings should be politely declined, and editors should make every effort not to provide such confidential materials even under court subpoena.
Editors should clearly state that reviewers are required to keep the manuscripts, associated materials, and contained information strictly confidential. Reviewers and editorial staff must not publicly discuss the author’s work. Reviewers should not retain the manuscript for personal use and must destroy physical copies and delete electronic copies after submitting their reviews.
If a manuscript is rejected, journals should delete the copies from editorial systems unless local regulations mandate otherwise. Journals that retain rejected manuscript copies must explain this practice in their Author Guidelines.
Journals should keep the original submission, review, revisions, and correspondence of published articles for at least three years, and possibly indefinitely, to address future questions regarding the works, in accordance with local regulations.
Editors should not publish reviewers’ comments without explicit permission from the reviewers and authors. If journal policy ensures reviewer anonymity and comments are unsigned, this anonymity should not be disclosed to authors or others without the reviewer’s written consent.
In cases of fraud or allegations of misconduct, confidentiality may need to be breached. However, editors should communicate this with authors or reviewers and respect confidentiality otherwise.
b. Timeliness
Editors should ensure that submissions are processed in a timely manner using available resources. If editors intend to publish an article, they should strive to do so promptly and discuss planned delays with the authors. If a journal does not intend to proceed with a manuscript, editors should aim to reject it as quickly as possible, allowing the authors to submit it to another journal.
c. Peer Review
Peer review is the critical evaluation of manuscripts submitted to journals, often conducted by experts who are not part of the editorial staff. Peer review is essential to scientific research and provides a mechanism for fair evaluation of submitted work. It also helps editors decide which submissions are suitable for their journals and can improve the quality of reporting by authors.
The value of peer review is widely debated, but it facilitates fair assessment within the scientific community. Editors are responsible for establishing appropriate peer-review systems and ensuring that reviewers have access to all materials needed for assessment, including supplementary materials.
Editors are also responsible for interpreting and evaluating reviewer comments appropriately. Peer-reviewed journals are not obligated to accept all submitted manuscripts and are not required to follow reviewer suggestions. Editors are ultimately accountable for selecting content and may reject manuscripts for reasons unrelated to quality, such as journal scope or relevance. Editors can also reject accepted articles if concerns arise about integrity or other issues.
Journals should provide a clear description of their peer review process, including whether it is open or blind, the number and type of reviewers involved, and other relevant details. Journals should also recognize the contributions of reviewers, such as sharing reviewer comments among peers to promote learning.
Editors are encouraged to review research protocols, statistical analysis plans, and other project-specific documents as part of peer review. They may also require authors to make such documents publicly available as a condition for publication.
Some journals mandate independent statistical analysis of trial data or specify data-sharing requirements for authors. Journals should clearly outline their requirements for data analysis and transparency in an easily accessible format.
Mechanisms should be in place for post-publication peer review, allowing readers to comment on published works, ask questions, or provide critiques. Authors should be expected to respond appropriately to such feedback and cooperate with data requests or additional inquiries related to their publication.
d. Integrity
Editorial decisions should be based on the suitability of the manuscript for the journal and its originality, quality, and contribution to critical questions. Decisions should not be influenced by commercial interests, personal relationships, agendas, or controversial findings. Studies with inconclusive or statistically non-significant results should not be excluded solely for these reasons.
Journals should have a clear appeals process and systems to address complaints. Editors must remain independent and unbiased in making decisions and ensure that published content reflects the highest standards of scientific integrity.
e. Journal Metrics
Journal impact factors are often misused as proxies for research quality or as metrics for evaluating researchers’ careers, grants, or promotions. The ICMJE recommends minimizing the emphasis on journal impact factors and instead encourages journals to provide a range of metrics to inform readers and authors.
3. Reviewers
Manuscripts submitted to journals are the private and confidential property of the authors, and premature disclosure may harm them.
Reviewers are required to keep manuscripts and the information they contain strictly confidential. They must not publicly discuss the work or contact authors without permission. Reviewers should not retain manuscripts for personal use and must destroy all copies after completing their evaluations.
Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to review requests and submit their comments within the agreed time frame. Their feedback should be constructive, honest, and respectful.
Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the review process if a conflict exists.