The ethical principles and rules in ETUSBE Journal have been prepared in accordance with the guidelines of the 'Committe on Publication Ethics - COPE (https://publicationethics.org)).
* The author(s) should not send a work published in any journal or sent for publication to ETUSBE Journal.
* Although the author(s) are expected to submit works of original value to ETUSBE Journal, they should cite all sources used in their studies in line with ethical principles.
* The author(s) should indicate the people who contributed to the study. It should not be recommended to add authors to people who did not contribute to the study (especially for the study that is about to be published).
* If there is a conflict of interest or a union of interests regarding the author(s), the editor(s) must be notified.
* The author(s) should make the mistakes they noticed in their published, preview or evaluation stages in cooperation with the editor (such as informing, retracting or correcting the work).
* The author(s) must upload the ethics committee approval they have received for research that requires an ethics committee decision to the system during the article application. However, the author(s) should cite on the first and last page of the study and in the method section. You can also access the Tr Index Ethical Principles Flow Chart by clicking.
* In case raw data is requested from the author(s) regarding their research, they are obliged to send the necessary data and information to the editorial board and scientific committee.
All studies submitted to ETUSBE Journal are evaluated by double-blind peer-review. While aiming an impartial, objective and independent evaluation process in this applied refereeing, the information of the author(s) and referee(s) will be kept confidential.
* The referee(s) should only accept studies related to their field of expertise.
* The referee(s) should evaluate the work in line with purely scientific principles, impartiality and confidentiality.
* The referee(s) are required to state their evaluations about the study in detail by filling out the Referee Evaluation Form and stating their opinions about the study in detail in the Comments About the Article section below this form.
* The reviewer(s) should reject the evaluation by informing the editor when they realize that there is a conflict of interest or interest.
* The referee(s) should make their evaluations within the framework of an academic language. Personal comments with hostility and insults should be avoided. The referee(s) who make non-scientific comments may be requested to review and correct their comments. However, referee evaluations that do not meet the required standards will not be taken into account.
* The referee(s) are required to complete the work they evaluate within the specified timeframe and comply with the ethical responsibilities stated above.
General Duties and Responsibilities
* The editor(s) should strive to meet the reviewers', authors' and readers' knowledge needs about the process.
* The editor(s) should strive to ensure that the publication quality and process of ETUSBE Journal is carried out and developed in accordance with the determined rules.
* Editor(s), within the framework of publication policies, should activate the processes to improve the quality of the studies, respect the freedom of thought, and make an effort to ensure academic integrity.
* The editor(s) must ensure the protection of the personal data of the author, referee and reader within the framework of the publication policy of ETUSBE Journal.
* Editor(s) must protect the intellectual property rights of all works submitted to ETUSBE Journal. In case of infringement, it should defend the rights of the work and the author(s).
* The editor(s) constantly updates the referee pool and sends the studies to the referees according to their fields of expertise.
* Editor(s) should communicate effectively with everyone involved in the review of all studies submitted to ETUSBE Journal and take precautions against misconduct.
Relations with the Reader(s)
* The editor(s) should pay attention to the contribution of the studies published in the ETUSBE Journal to the scientific literature and to their originality.
* Editor(s) are obliged to give explanatory and informative answers, taking into account the feedback.
Relations with the Author(s)
* Editor(s) should arrange the publication policy and writing rules on sample templates in line with the expectations of the authors.
* Editor(s) should convey the necessary information in a way that does not affect the refereeing process, if the authors request it.
* The editor(s) should advance the process by taking into account the referee's suggestions, unless there are serious problems with the studies.
Relations with the Referee(s)
* The editor(s) should ask the referees to evaluate the articles according to their knowledge and expertise.
* The editor(s) is responsible for providing auxiliary resources such as information, guides, and forms that the referee(s) may need.
* The editor(s) should create a database of referees and update this database according to the performances of the referees.
* The editor(s) should remove the referees from the database who behave in an unfamiliar language and do not comply with the specified deadlines.
* The editor(s) should encourage the referee(s) to evaluate the work in an impartial and scientific language.
All studies submitted to ETUSBE Journal are scanned with the iThenticate (http://www.ithenticate.com) software program at the preflight stage. Studies with a similarity rate of less than 25%, complying with the spelling rules and receiving the approval of the language editor are included in the evaluation process. In addition, if the following unethical behaviors are detected, the study is rejected.
* Among the authors of the study, there are people who did not contribute intellectually.
* If the study is produced from any of the studies such as master's / doctorate / project / academic presentation, it is not stated.
* Transforming the work into more than one work by dividing it into parts.
* Failure to report conflict of interest or association of interests of the study.
* Interfering with the refereeing process of the study.