Ethical Guidelines for Authors Publishing in JAST

1-All submissions must be original and contribute in a significant way to their field(s) of study. Manuscripts should provide new insights or interpretations that could further academic understanding.

2-Authors are required to properly attribute the works and ideas of others, in accordance with the latest MLA style (9th edition), even when paraphrasing. All forms of plagiarism, including self-plagiarism (reusing one’s own published work without citation), are unacceptable and any violation will result in the automatic rejection of the manuscript. Please see the submission guidelines.

3-Authors are responsible for securing permissions for any copyrighted material (including images, figures, tables, or lengthy text excerpts) used in their submission. Evidence of permission must be provided before publication. Please see the submission guidelines to download the “Declaration and Copyrights Form.”

4-Manuscripts submitted to JAST must not be under review by another journal or publisher, nor previously published, in whole or in part. If the manuscript is accepted, the Editorial Board expects that its appearance in JAST will precede publication of the article, or any significant part thereof, in another work.

5-Authors must fully comply with JAST’s double-blind peer review process. All feedback provided by reviewers and editors, including suggested revisions, must be addressed in a thorough and timely manner. Authors are encouraged to view the review process as a collaborative effort to enhance the quality and impact of their work.

6-Authors must ensure the integrity of the research presented in their manuscripts. Any fabricated or falsified data will result in rejection.

7-Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence the research or its interpretation, including funding sources, institutional affiliations, or personal relationships.

8-Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made significant intellectual contributions to the research. All co-authors must approve the final manuscript and be accountable for its content. Any changes in authorship (additions, removals, or order changes) must be approved by all co-authors and explained to the Editorial Board.

9-Authors are expected to promptly inform the Editorial Board of any errors discovered in their published work. JAST will issue corrections, retractions, or other amendments as necessary to maintain academic accuracy and integrity.


Ethical Guidelines for the Peer Reviewers

As the Committee on Publication Ethics noted, peer reviewers are integral to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. The peer review process relies heavily on the trust and voluntary participation, necessitating responsible behavior from all involved. Journals must provide transparent peer review policies, and reviewers must conduct their reviews ethically and accountably. See, Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, 2017.

Reviewers are kindly asked to follow the ethical guidelines covering such issues as objective evaluation, conflict of interest, confidentiality, constructive feedback, and timely submissions when reviewing for JAST articles. In this context:

1-Reviewers must consider each manuscript on its merits, irrespective of the topics, regions, or social groups covered. They may disagree with the author’s opinions but should allow them to present their case if supported by evidence.

2-Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest before agreeing to review a manuscript, including any previous familiarity with the submitted work.

3-Reviewers must keep the peer review process confidential, refraining from sharing information or correspondence about a manuscript with anyone outside the review process. They must not use information obtained during the peer review for personal or others’ advantage or to discredit others.

4-Reviewers should provide a constructive, comprehensive, and evidence-based peer review report, justifying their final decisions. They should make constructive suggestions, seek clarification on unclear points, and ask for further elaboration where necessary. If recommending shortening, reviewers should specify the areas. Artificial intelligence tools to generate a “general” review report with no specific mentions would not be helpful. Reviewers should distinguish between essential additional investigations to support the manuscript’s claims and the ones which will just extend the work.

5-Reviewers must avoid making statements that could be interpreted as questioning anyone’s reputation. Confidential comments to the editor should not include denigration or false accusations, even if the authors will not see these comments.

6-Reviewers should make every effort to submit their report and recommendation on time. If unable to meet the deadline, they should inform the editor. If they cannot review, it is helpful to make suggestions for alternative reviewers if relevant, based on their expertise and without any influence of personal considerations or any intention of the manuscript receiving a specific outcome (either positive or negative).

7-While it is not the reviewer’s job to edit for spelling and grammar, noting specific points where the technical meaning is unclear is helpful. Reviewers should be sensitive to language issues, particularly when authors write in a non-native language, and provide respectful and appropriate feedback.


Steps in the JAST Peer Review Process

The author(s) submits the paper to the journal through DERGİPARK.

In the initial editorial check, the editors first ensure that the manuscript adheres to the journal’s instructions for authors, verifying the inclusion of all required sections and proper formatting and style. JAST utilizes Turnitin to check the originality of manuscripts. Editors then assess whether the paper aligns with the journal’s aims and scope and determine if it is sufficiently original and interesting for the journal’s audience. Papers that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without further review.

If the manuscript fits within the journal’s scope and is deemed original and interesting, invitations along with the abstract are sent to potential reviewers identified as appropriate for the paper. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers from different institutions. Upon receiving the invitation, reviewers are responsible for understanding and following the ethical guidelines for peer review. Once the invitation is accepted, the manuscript is sent to the reviewer for assessment.

During the review process, the reviewers allocate time to read the manuscript multiple times to develop a detailed, point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, including a recommendation to accept or reject the manuscript, or a request for revision. Revisions are classified as major or minor, depending on the extent of work required on the manuscript. Editors consider all returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews are significantly divergent, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to provide another opinion before making a decision.

At the editorial decision stage, the editors communicate the decision to the author(s), which may be to accept, reject, or request revisions. This communication includes the reviewer reports and additional editorial guidance if revisions are requested. If the manuscript is sent back for revision, reviewers should expect to receive a revised version unless they have opted out of further participation. In cases where only minor changes are requested, the follow-up review may be conducted by the editor.

At every stage, it is crucial for the editors, authors and reviewers to adhere to the time allocations specified in the Dergipark system to ensure a smooth production process.