Ethical Rules, Publication Policy and Open Access Policy Publication Ethics
· All parties included in the publication process (authors, readers and researchers, publisher, reviewers and editors) carried out by IJLEL comply with the standards of ethical considerations. IJLEL journal applies the guidelines and policies published by the Turkish Council of Higher Education and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) on ethical duties and responsibilities.
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
· The author(s) warrant that the manuscript submitted is his/her/their own original research.
· All participated authors in this work take public responsibility and have approved that the manuscript has not been sent any other journal for publication.
· Review process cannot begin in case of failure or missing any of the requirements mentioned in this journal.
· The submitter must provide and maintain all requirements during the evaluation process.
· It should be made sure that other individuals shown as co-authors have contributed to the research. It is contrary to the scientific ethics to add some, who are not academic contributors to the article, as co-authors or to put in order co-authors with non-academic criteria such as title, age, and gender regardless of the order of contribution.
· It is assumed that authors who submit articles to the journal read and accept the publishing and writing principles of the journal and the writers are deemed to have committed themselves to these principles.
· Citations and bibliography should be complete and realistic.
· Author commits all conditions by sending the manuscript.
· All matter included in the manuscript does not violate any existing copyright rules and any intellectual property rights of any person or entity.
· The manuscript meets ethical standards applicable to the research discipline.
· All peer review publications will be refereed in double-blind review process by at least two reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. Book, Software and Website Reviews will not be reviewed, but the editors reserve the right to refuse or edit review.
Plagiarism Policy
· The authors should scan their manuscripts with the plagiarism (such as iThenticate, Turnitin, intihal.net) before submitting the system and maximum rate should not exceed 25%.
Ethical Responsibilities of Editors
The editors of IJLEL should hold the following ethical responsibilities that are based on the guides "COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" and "COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" published as open Access by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
General duties and responsibilities
Editors are responsible for each study published in IJLEL. In this respect, the editors have the following roles and responsibilities:
Making efforts to meet the demand for knowledge from readers and authors,
Ensuring the continuous development of the journal,
Managing the procedures aimed to improve the quality of the studies published in the journal,
Supporting freedom of expression,
Ensuring academic integrity,
Following the procedures without making concessions on intellectual property rights and ethical standards,
Being transparent and clear in issues that require correction or explanation.
Relationships with Readers
Editors must make decisions taking into consideration the knowledge, skills and expectations of all readers, researchers and practitioners need. They must also ensure that the published studies contribute to literature and be original. Moreover, they must take notice of the feedback received from researchers and practitioners and provide explanatory and informative feedback.
Relationships with Authors
Editors have the following duties and responsibilities in their relations with authors:
Editors must make positive or negative decisions about the studies' importance, originality, validity, clarity in wording and suitability with the journal's aims and objectives.
Editors must accept the studies that are within the scope of publication into pre review process unless there are serious problems with the study.
Editors must not ignore positive suggestions made by reviewers unless there are serious problems with the study.
New editors, unless there are serious issues, must not change the previous editor's decisions about the studies.
"Blind Review and Review Process" must be published and editors must prevent possible diversions in the defined processes.
Editors must publish an "Writing Rules" that is comprehensive enough in answering queries by authors. This guide must be updated regularly.
Authors should be provided with explanatory and informative feedback.
Relationships with Reviewers
Editors have the following duties and responsibilities in their relations with reviewers:
Editors must
choose reviewers according to the subject of the study.
provide the information and guidance reviewers may need during the review process.
observe whether there are conflicting interests between reviewers and authors.
keep the identities of reviewers confidential in blind review.
encourage the reviewers to review the manuscript in an unbiased, scientific and objective tone.
evaluate reviewers regularly based on criteria like performance and timing.
develop practices and policies that increase the performance of reviewers.
take necessary steps to update the reviewer pool dynamically.
prevent unkind and unscientific reviews.
make effort to ensure the reviewer pool has a wide range.
Relationships with the Editorial Board
Editors must make sure that the members of the editorial board follow the procedures in accordance with the publication policies and guidelines, and must inform the members about the publication policies and developments. The editors must also train new members of the editorial board and provide the information they need.
Moreover, editors must
ensure that the members of the editorial board review the manuscripts in an unbiased and independent manner.
select the new members of the editorial board from those who can contribute to the journal and are qualified enough.
send manuscripts for review based on the subject of expertise of the editorial board members.
regularly communicate with the editorial board.
arrange regular meetings with the editorial board for the development of publication policies and the journal.
Relationships with the Journal's Owner and Publisher
The relationship between the editors and publisher is based on the principle of the independency of editors. All the decisions made by the editors are independent of the publisher and the owner of the journal as required by the agreement made between editors and publisher.
Editorial and Blind Review Processes
Editors are obliged to comply with the policies of "Blind Review and Review Process" stated in the journal's publication policies. Therefore, the editors ensure that each manuscript is reviewed in an unbiased, fair and timely manner.
Quality Assurance
Editors must make sure that articles in the journal are published in accordance with the publication policies of the journal and international standards.
Protection of Personal Information
Editors are supposed to protect the personal information related with the subjects or visuals in the studies being reviewed, and to reject the study if there is no documentation of the subjects' consent. Furthermore, editors are supposed to protect the personal information of the authors, reviewers and readers.
Encouraging Ethical Rules and Protection of Human and Animal Rights
Editors are supposed to protect human and animal rights in the studies being reviewed and must reject the experimental studies which do not have ethical and related committee’s approval about the population given in such studies.
Precautions against possible Abuse and Malpractice
Editors are supposed to take precautions against possible abuse and malpractice. They must conduct investigations meticulously and objectively in determining and evaluating complaints about such situations. They must also share the results of the investigation.
Ensuring Academic Integrity
Editors must make sure that the mistakes, inconsistencies or misdirections in studies are corrected quickly.
Protection of Intellectual Property Rights
Editors are responsible for protecting the intellectual property rights of all the articles published in the journal and the rights of the journal and author(s) in cases where these rights are violated. Also, editors must take the necessary precautions in order to prevent the content of all published articles from violating the intellectual property rights of other publications.
Constructiveness and Openness to Discussion
Editors must pay attention to the convincing criticism about studies published in the journal and must have a constructive attitude towards such criticism.
grant the right of reply to the author(s) of the criticized study.
not ignore or exclude the study that include negative results.
Complaints
Editors must examine the complaints from authors, reviewers or readers and respond to them in an explanatory and enlightening manner.
Political and Economic Apprehensions
Neither the owner of the journal, publisher or any other political or economical factor can influence the independent decision taking of the editors.
Conflicting Interests
Editors, acknowledging that there may be conflicting interests between reviewers and other editors, guarantee that the publication process of the manuscripts will be completed in an independent and unbiased manner
Peer Review Process
Blind review is a method used to make sure scientific publications are produced with the highest quality. This method is fundamental to the objective review of scientific studies and is preferred by many scientific journals. All manuscripts submitted to IJLEL are blind reviewed according to the steps below:
Blind Review Method
IJLEL uses the double blind review method in the review process of all studies. In this method the identities of the authors and reviewers are confidential.
Pre-Review Process
In the pre-review process, first of all, the appropriateness of the study with the journal writing rules is checked and plagiarism check is performed. Authors should submit the plagiarism report (similarity report) of their work together with the submission of the manuscript. Studies without plagiarism report will not be evaluated. If the plagiarism rate of the submitted manuscript except bibliography is below 25% and it is found to be in accordance with the journal writing rules, it is assigned to the relevant field editor. Candidate manuscripts that do not comply with the journal writing rules and do not have plagiarism report are returned to the author by the assistant editors at the latest within one month. While preparing plagiarism report, the bibliography of the manuscript, author names and information about the authors must be removed from the text. A detailed report showing which parts of the report are similar to the sources scanned must be sent, not the screen shot of the report. In addition, while the report is being prepared, the "Extract Bibliography" "Extract citiations" options must be unchecked (off) and the report must be prepared and sent with the option checked (on) "remove less than five word simulations". The corrections requested from the authors at the pre-review process must be sent within 15 days. Otherwise, the study is removed from the evaluation process.
Field Editor Pre-Revies Process
In the field editor pre-review process, the field editors evaluate the introduction and literature, method, findings, results, discussion parts of the studies in detail with respect to the publishing policies and scope of the journal as well as originality. At this stage, the studies which are not related with the journal's aim and scope, weak in terms of language and wording, lack originality, contain critical scientific mistakes and do not meet the publishing criteria are rejected. The authors of such studies are informed in one month following the submission date. The studies deemed acceptable, on the other hand, are forwarded to at least two reviewer related with the subject of study that the work focuses on.
Reviewer Process
The field editors assing at least two reviewers that they deem appropriate according to the content of the study and the referees' field of expertise to evaluate the study.
Reviewers obligated to guarantee that they will not share any document or detail about the study they review.
Reviewer Reports
In general, the reviewer reports are based on the originality of the studies, methods, ethical considerations, consistent presentation of the findings and results and analysis of the studies with respect to literature. This evaluation is done according to the following:
Literature: the reviewer report includes views about the presentation and aims of the problem addressed in the study, the importance of the topic, the gaps in the literature about the topic, the scope of the related literature, the originality and topicality of the study.
Method: the reviewer report includes views about the appropriateness of the research method, sample choice and properties, validity and reliability issues, as well as data collection and data analysis.
Findings: the reviewer report includes views about the presentation of the findings obtained through the method, the accuracy of the analysis methods, the consistency of the aims and findings of the study, the presentation of tables, diagrams and visuals that are needed, and the conceptual evaluation of the scales.
Evaluation and Discussion: the reviewer report includes views about discussions based on findings, suitability with the research question(s) and hypothesis(ses), generalizability and applicability.
Results and Suggestions: the reviewer report includes views about contribution to literature, recommendations for future studies and suggestions about applications in the field.
Style and Wording: the reviewer report includes views about whether the title comprises the content of the study, whether the Turkish language is used accurately and whether APA6 rules are observed in giving references and in-text references in parallel with the language of the full text.
In the review process, reviewers are not expected to redact the study according to its galley features.
Reviewing Process
Reviewers are given 5 weeks for review. Referees who do not return during this period are given an additional 2 weeks. At the end of this additional period, if there is no return from the reviewer, the field editor is requested to assing another reviewer. It is compulsory for the authors to complete the editing of their work within 1 month according. The manuscripts that are not sent within the specified period are rejected. Reviewers may ask multiple editing of a study if they deem necessary.
Review Results
The editor evaluates the review by reviewers within 4 weeks at the latest and as a result of this evaluation the field editor informs the editorial board about his/her final decision regarding the study.
Editorial Board Decision
Based on the review done by the field editor and reviewers, editors report the views of the editorial board to the author(s) in two weeks at the latest along with the suggestions made by the field editor and reviewers. In this process the studies that are not accepted for publication are returned to author(s). The final decision about the accepted studies is made based on the results of the plagiarism detection report by editorial boardi
How long does the Publication Review Process last?
It is anticipated that the publication review process of the studies submitted to IJLEL be completed in about 16 weeks if pre-review complated. However, the period during which editors or reviewers ask the author(s) to do editing and the author(s) complete the editing is not included in this time frame.
Open Access Policy
IJLEL journal provides immediate open access to its content, on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
IJLEL is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
IJLEL applies the Budapest Open Access Declarition as a principle. In this context, The Budapest Open Access declares that:
An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good. The old tradition is the willingness of scientists and scholars to publish the fruits of their research in scholarly journals without payment, for the sake of inquiry and knowledge. The new technology is the internet. The public good they make possible is the world-wide electronic distribution of the peer-reviewed journal literature and completely free and unrestricted access to it by all scientists, scholars, teachers, students, and other curious minds. Removing access barriers to this literature will accelerate research, enrich education, share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich, make this literature as useful as it can be, and lay the foundation for uniting humanity in a common intellectual conversation and quest for knowledge.
For various reasons, this kind of free and unrestricted online availability, which we will call open access, has so far been limited to small portions of the journal literature. But even in these limited collections, many different initiatives have shown that open access is economically feasible, that it gives readers extraordinary power to find and make use of relevant literature, and that it gives authors and their works vast and measurable new visibility, readership, and impact. To secure these benefits for all, we call on all interested institutions and individuals to help open up access to the rest of this literature and remove the barriers, especially the price barriers, that stand in the way. The more who join the effort to advance this cause, the sooner we will all enjoy the benefits of open access.
The literature that should be freely accessible online is that which scholars give to the world without expectation of payment. Primarily, this category encompasses their peer-reviewed journal articles, but it also includes any unreviewed preprints that they might wish to put online for comment or to alert colleagues to important research findings. There are many degrees and kinds of wider and easier access to this literature. By "open access" to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.
While the peer-reviewed journal literature should be accessible online without cost to readers, it is not costless to produce. However, experiments show that the overall costs of providing open access to this literature are far lower than the costs of traditional forms of dissemination. With such an opportunity to save money and expand the scope of dissemination at the same time, there is today a strong incentive for professional associations, universities, libraries, foundations, and others to embrace open access as a means of advancing their missions. Achieving open access will require new cost recovery models and financing mechanisms, but the significantly lower overall cost of dissemination is a reason to be confident that the goal is attainable and not merely preferable or utopian.
To achieve open access to scholarly journal literature, we recommend two complementary strategies.
I. Self-Archiving: First, scholars need the tools and assistance to deposit their refereed journal articles in open electronic archives, a practice commonly called, self-archiving. When these archives conform to standards created by the Open Archives Initiative, then search engines and other tools can treat the separate archives as one. Users then need not know which archives exist or where they are located in order to find and make use of their contents.
II. Open-access Journals: Second, scholars need the means to launch a new generation of journals committed to open access, and to help existing journals that elect to make the transition to open access. Because journal articles should be disseminated as widely as possible, these new journals will no longer invoke copyright to restrict access to and use of the material they publish. Instead they will use copyright and other tools to ensure permanent open access to all the articles they publish. Because price is a barrier to access, these new journals will not charge subscription or access fees, and will turn to other methods for covering their expenses. There are many alternative sources of funds for this purpose, including the foundations and governments that fund research, the universities and laboratories that employ researchers, endowments set up by discipline or institution, friends of the cause of open access, profits from the sale of add-ons to the basic texts, funds freed up by the demise or cancellation of journals charging traditional subscription or access fees, or even contributions from the researchers themselves. There is no need to favor one of these solutions over the others for all disciplines or nations, and no need to stop looking for other, creative alternatives.
Open access to peer-reviewed journal literature is the goal. Self-archiving (I.) and a new generation of open-access journals (II.) are the ways to attain this goal. They are not only direct and effective means to this end, they are within the reach of scholars themselves, immediately, and need not wait on changes brought about by markets or legislation. While we endorse the two strategies just outlined, we also encourage experimentation with further ways to make the transition from the present methods of dissemination to open access. Flexibility, experimentation, and adaptation to local circumstances are the best ways to assure that progress in diverse settings will be rapid, secure, and long-lived.
The Open Society Institute, the foundation network founded by philanthropist George Soros, is committed to providing initial help and funding to realize this goal. It will use its resources and influence to extend and promote institutional self-archiving, to launch new open-access journals, and to help an open-access journal system become economically self-sustaining. While the Open Society Institute's commitment and resources are substantial, this initiative is very much in need of other organizations to lend their effort and resources.
We invite governments, universities, libraries, journal editors, publishers, foundations, learned societies, professional associations, and individual scholars who share our vision to join us in the task of removing the barriers to open access and building a future in which research and education in every part of the world are that much more free to flourish.
February 14, 2002
Budapest, Hungary
Leslie Chan: Bioline International
Darius Cuplinskas: Director, Information Program, Open Society Institute
Michael Eisen: Public Library of Science
Fred Friend: Director Scholarly Communication, University College London
Yana Genova: Next Page Foundation
Jean-Claude Guédon: University of Montreal
Melissa Hagemann: Program Officer, Information Program, Open Society Institute
Stevan Harnad: Professor of Cognitive Science, University of Southampton, Universite du Quebec a Montreal
Rick Johnson: Director, Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC)
Rima Kupryte: Open Society Institute
Manfredi La Manna: Electronic Society for Social Scientists
István Rév: Open Society Institute, Open Society Archives
Monika Segbert: eIFL Project consultant
Sidnei de Souza: Informatics Director at CRIA, Bioline International
Peter Suber: Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College & The Free Online Scholarship Newsletter
Jan Velterop: Publisher, BioMed Central
December 31, 2021
Page
1-13