PUBLICATION PRINCIPLES
Hakkari Review operates within the framework of the publication principles outlined below.
1)Hakkari Review is a peer-reviewed journal that aims to contribute to the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge in the fields of Labour Economics and Industrial Relations, Economics, Business Administration, Public Administration, Public Finance, Political Science, and International Relations.
2)In accordance with its open access policy, access to articles published in Hakkari Review is free of charge, and no submission or evaluation fee is requested from authors.
3)Articles published in the journal cannot be used for commercial purposes in whole or in part; however, they may be cited or shared for scientific purposes provided proper attribution is given.
4)Authors must obtain legal permission for any copyrighted data, images, tables, etc. used in their manuscripts. Hakkari Review is not responsible for any copyright issues that may arise.
5)The evaluation process for manuscripts submitted to the journal is conducted through the DergiPark system.
6) For manuscripts to be considered for evaluation, they must adhere to the Publication Principles, Ethical Principles, and Author Guidelines.
7) If there is a direct or indirect commercial relationship or if the study receives financial support from an institution, authors must disclose this relationship.
8) Every submission to Hakkari Review is first evaluated by the Editorial Board in terms of content and format—such as scope, compliance with author guidelines, ethical principles, and originality in the relevant field.
9) Manuscripts rejected during the initial review are returned to the corresponding author with justification within fifteen days following their submission to the system.
10)Manuscripts that pass the initial review and are deemed suitable for peer review are sent to at least two reviewers—at least one of whom must be from outside the author’s institution—based on their relevance to the subject and field of study.
11) All submissions are evaluated through a Double-Blind Peer Review process. The review process is carried out in accordance with the ethical principles announced for reviewers and editors. Since the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential, authors must remove all identifying information (names, acknowledgments, self-identifying expressions such as “in my previous study”) from the Manuscript Title–Main Text file.
12) Reviewers are given one month to complete their evaluations. Extensions may be granted upon request. If a reviewer fails to provide a report within the allotted time, a new reviewer is assigned.
13) If both reviewers present consistent opinions following the evaluation, the decision is communicated to the author along with the reviewer reports.
14) In cases where the two reviewers present conflicting opinions, a third reviewer is assigned. The final decision is made in accordance with the third reviewer’s report.
15) Manuscripts that are not accepted for publication following the peer-review process are returned to the corresponding author with justification.
16) Manuscripts accepted for publication after peer review are screened using Turnitin and iThenticate. If the similarity index exceeds 20%, the manuscript is rejected by the Editorial Board. Manuscripts with a similarity rate below 20% are uploaded to the system in their revised form.
17) Manuscripts that have completed all procedures are placed in the publication queue and published in the next issue.
ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
The publication processes applied in Hakkari Review are carried out within the framework of the ethical rules prepared in line with the guide published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) stated below, covering all interested parties.
Ethical Responsibilities of the Author(s):
● The works submitted by the author(s) must be original and must not have been previously published or submitted for publication anywhere.
● The author(s) must refrain from the actions that are contrary to the ethics of scientific research and publication stated below.
o Plagiarism: Presenting the ideas, methods, data, practices, writings, figures or works of others as his/her own work, in whole or in part, without attribution, in accordance with scientific ethics.
o Forgery: Producing data that is not based on research, editing or modifying the presented or published work on the basis of untrue data, reporting or publishing these, presenting an unfinished research as if it has been done.
o Distortion: To falsify research records and obtained data, to present methods, devices and materials that are not used in the research as if they were used, not to evaluate the data that are not suitable for the research hypothesis, to manipulate the data or results in order to fit the relevant theory or assumptions, falsify or shape its results.
o Repetitive publication: Presenting more than one work containing the same results of a research as separate works in associate professor examination evaluations and academic promotions.
o Slicing: Presenting the results of a research as a separate works in certain exam evaluations and academic incentives and promotions by dissecting the results of the research in a way that violates the integrity of the research, by inappropriately dividing it and making multiple publications without attribution.
o Unfair authorship: Adding non-active contributors to the authors of article, not including active contributors among authors, changing the order of authors unjustifiably and inappropriately, removing the names of active contributors from the work at the time of publication or in subsequent editions, using their influence even though they have no active contribution. include it among the authors.
o Duplication: Submitting or publishing the same results of a study to more than one journal for publication. (In cases where the content of the broadcast concerns more than one area of expertise or if it is beneficial to publish the publication in a different language, a repetition of the broadcast may be accepted, provided that approval is obtained from both broadcasting corporations.)
o Other types of ethical violations: Not clearly stating the supporting persons, institutions or organizations and their contributions to the research in the publications of supported research, not following the ethical rules in research on humans and animals, not respecting the rights of patients in their publications, in a work they are assigned to review as a referee to share the information contained in it with others before it is published, to misuse the resources, places, facilities and devices provided or reserved for scientific research, to accuse completely baseless, groundless and willful ethical violations.
● Within the framework of ethical rules; In order to be evaluated in Hakkari Review, Ethics Committee Permission is required for the following studies.
o All kinds of research conducted with qualitative or quantitative approaches that require data collection from the participants by using survey, interview, focus group work, observation, experiment, interview techniques,
o The use of humans and animals (including material/data) for experimental or other scientific purposes,
o Clinical researches on humans,
o Researches on animals,
o Retrospective studies in accordance with the personal data protection law
● In studies to be evaluated in Hakkari Review within this framework, to be documented when necessary;
o Indicating that an “informed consent form” was received in case reports,
o Obtaining and specifying permission from the owners for the use of scales, questionnaires, photographs belonging to others,
o It should be stated that copyright regulations are complied with for the intellectual and artistic works used.
Ethical Responsibilities of the Referee(s):
● The referee(s) should agree to evaluate only studies related to their field of expertise.
● They should make their evaluations objectively and clearly, and should not act in line with their own personal interests/opinions.
● If he/she thinks he/she is facing a conflict of interest during the evaluation process, he/she should refuse to review the study and inform the editor.
● The evaluation process should be carried out within the framework of the principle of confidentiality, it should not be shared with third parties, considering that the work submitted to it is personal.
● They should not transfer information for their own work from the work they are assigned as a referee, and should not pursue any academic/personal interests.
● He/She should make his/her evaluation in a constructive language and avoid insulting and humiliating personal comments.
● They should provide clear and detailed justifications for the work they will reject.
● He/she must perform the work that he/she accepts to evaluate on time and within the framework of the ethical responsibilities stated above.
Ethical Responsibilities of Editor(s):
● Editors, who have the responsibility and authority to accept the studies as a result of preliminary examination and send them to the referees or reject them, in addition to using this responsibility and authority in a timely and appropriate manner;
o It is obligatory for the study to be original and to contribute to its field, to act according to criteria such as the publication policy, writing rules and level of the journal, and not to have a conflict of interest related to the study.
● The referee should determine the appropriate referee for the science field and subject of the studies that are decided to be appointed. When doing this;
o Overseeing whether there is a conflict of interest between the author(s) and the referees,
o Keeping the information of the author and the referee mutually confidential, as required by bilateral blind refereeing,
o To encourage referees to evaluate the work in an impartial, scientific and objective language,
o Preventing rude and unscientific evaluations,
o In order to determine the referees' decisions about whether or not to assign them in the next evaluation processes; to evaluate them in terms of criteria such as making their evaluations on time, diligence in their reports, and whether they comply with the ethical principles determined for the referee(s),
o They have to provide the information and rules required by the referees during the evaluation process.
● In addition, while the editor(s) are performing their duties;
o They should not use their current position for their own personal and academic interests.
o They should maintain their relations in a transparent and objective manner without discriminating between the author(s) and the referee(s).
o They should provide clear and detailed justifications for candidate articles to be rejected.
o They should consider scientific research, publication and referee ethics.
December 24, 2025
Page
2-18
