Innovation in Science, Technology and Engineering (İSTE) Journal follows certain ethical standards for publication in order to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and due credit for original ideas. The journal adheres to the Code of Conduct and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2026, July 21). Code of Conduct for Members. Retrieved October 24, 2026, from https://publicationethics.org/membership/code-of-conduct
Authors who submit papers to Innovation in Science, Technology and Engineering (İSTE) Journal certify that their work is original and has not been published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. The authors also confirm that the submitted papers have not been copied or plagiarized, in whole or in part, from other papers or studies. Authors disclose any financial, professional, personal or institutional relationships that could influence the conduct, evaluation or interpretation of the study; if there is no conflict of interest, they state this explicitly.
All submitted manuscripts are screened during editorial pre-screening using the similarity detection system provided by DergiPark. If the overall similarity rate, excluding references, exceeds 20%, or the similarity with a single source exceeds 5%, the manuscript is subjected to detailed editorial review. The similarity rate alone is not an indicator of plagiarism; properly cited quotations and common methodological expressions are evaluated in context. Following this review, manuscripts with no identified ethical concerns proceed to further evaluation; where necessary, authors are asked to provide clarification or revisions, or the manuscript is rejected with an explanation. Similarity rates below these thresholds do not, by themselves, establish the absence of plagiarism or suitability for publication. If plagiarism is detected at a later stage of the publication process or after publication, action is taken in accordance with COPE guidelines. The software and filtering settings used for similarity screening are recorded with the report. Comparable submissions are assessed using consistent settings; any additional checks and the reasons for them are documented.
The journal makes the necessary arrangements to ensure the impartial evaluation of submitted manuscripts and to prevent any actual or potential conflicts of interest between authors and reviewers.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS AND THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Editorial Responsibilities and Independence
All editors of the journal are independent in their evaluations and decisions. Editorial decisions are based solely on scientific criteria; no inappropriate interference in decision-making processes is permitted. Editors record any such attempts at pressure or interference and, where necessary, refer them to the relevant institutional mechanisms. On the other hand, editors are responsible for the decisions they make in the journal. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the journal's editorial processes and final publication decisions. The associate editors and the Editorial Board contribute to scientific evaluation and the development of publication policies within the scope of their duties.
Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
Submitted manuscripts and related evaluation information are shared only with the editors, reviewers and publication staff involved in the evaluation and publication process, to the extent required by their duties. These persons may not use unpublished information, ideas or data in their own work without permission. If an editor has a conflict of interest with an author, the author's institution or the study, the evaluation process is managed by another editor without a conflict of interest. Editors do not take part in the evaluation of, or decisions on, their own manuscripts.
Publishing Decisions
Editors ensure the peer review of manuscripts that pass the pre-screening by assigning at least two reviewers who are experts in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the decision to publish a manuscript, taking into account its importance for researchers and readers, the reviewer reports, and legal issues such as plagiarism and copyright infringement. The Editor-in-Chief may consult other editors and reviewers in making this decision.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS
Contribution to the Editor's Decision
Peer review is the examination of a submitted manuscript's scientific content, methodological rigour, reporting quality and compliance with the journal's policies, and the communication of the reviewer's opinion on any unsuitable content. The review process not only enables reviewers to forward their evaluations to the editors but also gives them the opportunity to improve the content of the manuscripts.
Timeliness of Review
If an assigned reviewer lacks the relevant subject expertise, does not have sufficient time for evaluation, or has a conflict of interest, they should inform the assigning editor and ask to withdraw. If the content of the manuscript fits the reviewer's expertise, they should complete the evaluation and submit the report within the period specified by the editorial office.
Confidentiality
Reviewers assigned to evaluate manuscripts accept in advance that the manuscripts are confidential documents and do not share any information about them with third parties other than the editors involved in the evaluation. Reviewers continue to maintain confidentiality even after the manuscripts are accepted or rejected. If a reviewer is suspected of using an idea from a manuscript under review without permission, the COPE flowchart "What to do if you suspect a reviewer has appropriated an author's ideas or data" is followed.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviewers should base their criticisms on scientific grounds and support their statements with scientific evidence. All comments intended to improve the manuscripts should be clear and direct, and written in a manner that does not offend the author. Insulting and derogatory statements should be avoided.
Appropriateness of Citations and References
Reviewers should assess whether statements, ideas, observations, conclusions and evidence drawn from other sources are appropriately cited. Where necessary, reviewers should also verify that the cited references actually support the claims made in the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
If a reviewer has one or more conflicting interests with the author(s), they should inform the assigning editor and ask to withdraw.
USE OF AI IN EDITORIAL AND PEER REVIEW PROCESSES
AI tools must not be appointed as independent reviewers or used as a substitute for human peer review. Editors and reviewers remain responsible for their assessments and decisions. Unpublished manuscripts, peer review reports and other confidential documents must not be uploaded to external AI services outside procedures established in advance by the journal and verified as appropriate with respect to confidentiality, data protection and terms of use.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS
Reporting Standards
In research articles, findings should be presented accurately and clearly and discussed in relation to the methods used and the evidence obtained. The research design and the data collection and analysis processes should be reported with the clarity required by the approach adopted. Information supporting reproducibility should be provided for applicable types of research, and information supporting the traceability of the research process for qualitative research. Authors must not knowingly report false or incomplete data. Review articles should explain how the sources were selected and examined, and should offer a critical or integrative contribution to the literature.
Data Access and Retention
Data and related documentation supporting the research findings must be stored securely. Subject to any different requirements arising from applicable legislation, institutional or funder policies, ethics committee decisions and commitments made to participants, anonymised research data must be retained for at least 10 years from publication of the article. Data that could identify participants are retained for the period and under the conditions permitted by applicable legislation, ethics committee decisions and commitments made to participants; such data are not made openly available. Where the editorial office requests data for scientific verification or an ethics investigation, sharing must comply with confidentiality obligations and the necessary access permissions.
Ethics Committee Approval and Informed Consent
For studies that collect data from human participants through surveys, interviews, focus groups, observations or experiments and require ethics committee approval, approval must be obtained before data collection. The name of the ethics committee, the decision date and the decision number must be stated in the methods section of the manuscript. Authors must explain how voluntary participation, informed consent and confidentiality were ensured. For research involving animals that requires ethics committee approval, approval must be obtained from the competent ethics committee in accordance with the applicable legislation and institutional requirements of the country where the research is conducted. The committee name, decision date and decision number must be reported in the manuscript. For studies that do not require ethics committee approval, the reason must be stated. Where an exemption from ethics committee approval or a waiver of informed consent applies, the basis for each must be explained separately, together with any relevant committee or institutional determination. Any permissions required for the use of scales, questionnaires or visuals belonging to others must also be obtained and stated in the manuscript.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors of submitted manuscripts should ensure that their manuscripts are original and that all material drawn from other sources is properly cited.
Duplicate Publication and Concurrent Submission
Studies derived from the same dataset must address different research questions and offer original contributions; their relationship to previous publications must be explained and those publications cited. Republishing the same findings without a new contribution, or dividing a study into unnecessary parts, is not acceptable. For manuscripts derived from theses or work presented at scientific meetings, authors must disclose to the editorial office the nature of the previous work, its access details and its relationship to the submitted manuscript. Conference presentation, publication of an abstract and publication of a full paper are considered separately. Editorial assessment takes account of the extent of the previous content, textual and scientific overlap, and the manuscript’s original contribution. Authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.
Withdrawal of Submitted Manuscripts
The corresponding author submits a reasoned withdrawal request to the editorial office with the knowledge and agreement of all authors. The editorial office reviews the request and communicates the outcome in writing. The manuscript must not be submitted to another journal before withdrawal is completed. A withdrawal request does not automatically terminate an ongoing investigation into an allegation of misconduct.
Authorship
All persons listed as authors of a manuscript must meet all of the following criteria:
• Making a substantial scientific contribution to the conception or design of the study, or to the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data,
• Participating in drafting the manuscript or critically revising it,
• Approving the final version of the manuscript,
• Accepting responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the study.
Contributors who do not meet these criteria (technical assistance, writing and editing support, general contributions, etc.) should not be included in the author list but may be listed in the acknowledgements section. The corresponding author should provide a separate list of contributors listed as authors and those to be included in the acknowledgements section.
Requests to add or remove authors or change the author order after submission are considered on the basis of a reasoned request from the corresponding author, written agreement from all authors and any persons proposed for addition or removal, and editorial assessment. Routine additions, removals or changes to author order are not made after acceptance. However, where a documented error, authorship dispute or ethical concern arises, the matter is examined in accordance with COPE guidance. Where necessary, publication is placed on hold, the relevant institutions are asked to investigate, or a correction process is initiated for a published article.
Conflict of Interest
Authors should clearly declare any conflict of interest in their manuscripts. If there is no conflict of interest, this should also be explicitly stated. The most common types of conflict of interest are financial support, educational or other types of funding, personal or institutional relationships and affiliations. All sources of financial support for the study (with grant or project numbers) should be declared.
Use of Sources
Authors should not use information obtained privately (conversations, correspondence or discussions) without the permission of the source. Information obtained from confidential documents or from the review of grant applications should not be used without the permission of the institutions providing the related service.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
Generative AI tools cannot be listed as authors. If such tools were used in preparing the manuscript, the tool and the purpose of its use must be stated in the declarations section of the manuscript before the references and in the Author Declaration Form. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of AI-generated content and the authenticity of the sources cited.
Where AI tools are used for activities that affect the research methods or findings, such as data processing, analysis, coding or image generation, the methods section must also explain how the tools were used and how the outputs were verified. AI-generated content must not be presented as research data or findings that were not actually obtained.
Peer Review
Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process. They should cooperate by responding to editors' requests for raw data, ethical approval documents, participant or patient consent (as applicable) and the author declaration form, as well as requests for clarification. Authors should respond to the revision suggestions resulting from peer review, either positively or negatively. In negative responses, they should make sure to include their counterarguments.
APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS
Authors may submit reasoned appeals against editorial decisions, and authors or readers may raise complaints about publication processes or published content, through the channel identified on the journal’s contact page. Submissions are examined together with the relevant information and documentation, and the outcome is communicated to the applicant. An editor who is the subject of an appeal or complaint does not participate in its assessment or resolution; the matter is handled by an editor or board member without a conflict of interest.
POST-PUBLICATION CORRECTIONS AND RETRACTIONS
Where an error or ethical concern is reported in a published article, the editorial office examines the matter and, where necessary, seeks explanations from the authors and assessments from the relevant institutions. Depending on the findings, a correction, expression of concern or retraction is issued in accordance with COPE guidance. Notices explain the reasons for the action and are linked to the original article. Retraction of a published article is distinct from withdrawal of a submitted manuscript from consideration.
DISCLAIMER
The views expressed in articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, editors or Editorial Board. Authors are responsible for the originality, accuracy and integrity of their work. The publisher and editors retain their responsibilities for ethical publication processes and for examining reported errors or ethical concerns. Authors check the proofs and communicate any necessary corrections. Errors arising during typesetting and production are corrected through cooperation between the authors and journal management, taking account of their origin and nature.
Note: Revisions requested after peer review must be completed within 2 months of the decision being sent to the corresponding author. If the authors neither respond nor submit a justified extension request within this period, the evaluation of the manuscript is terminated.