Open Access Policy
Journal of Ecological Harmony is an open access publication.
All content published in the journal is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 International License which allows third parties to use the content for non-commercial purposes as long as they give credit to the original work. This license allows for the content to be shared and adapted for non-commercial purposes, promoting the dissemination and use of the research published in the journal.
When using previously published content, including figures, tables, or any other material in both print and electronic formats, authors must obtain permission from the copyright holder. Legal, financial and criminal liabilities in this regard belong to the author(s).
Copyright Policy
When using previously published content, including figures, tables, or any other material in both print and electronic formats, authors must obtain permission from the copyright holder. Legal, financial and criminal liabilities in this regard belong to the author(s).
Authors retain the copyright of their published work in the Journal of Ecological Harmony.
Self-Archiving Policy
Authors retain the right to self-archive their work on their institutional or personal websites, as well as in open access repositories, after publication. It is expected that authors appropriately acknowledge the original publication and include the DOI number when sharing their articles.
Publication Fee Policy
Authors are not required to pay any fees during the evaluation and publication process.
Advertising Policy
Journal of Ecological Harmony accepts digital advertisements on its website. These ads must be approved by the journal's Editorial Board and management, and must be clearly labeled as advertisements. Advertisers have no influence on editorial decisions or advertising policies.
Those interested in advertising in the journal should contact the Editorial Office.
Peer Review Process
Manuscripts submitted to Journal of Ecological Harmony will go through a double anonymized peer-review process where both authors and reviewers are anonymous to each other. Each submission will be reviewed by at least two external, independent peer reviewers who are experts in their fields in order to ensure an unbiased evaluation process.
Submissions will first go through a technical evaluation process during which the editorial office staff will ensure that the manuscript was prepared and submitted in accordance with the journal’s guidelines. Submissions that do not conform to the journal’s guidelines will be returned to the submitting authors with technical correction requests.
Submissions that conform to the journal’s guidelines will be assigned to the Editor in Chief who will assess each submission’s suitability to the journal in terms of scope and quality. Submissions that are not suitable for the journal can be rejected at this stage.
For papers that are suitable for the journal, the Editor in Chief will work with Editors who will recruit reviewers for the manuscript. Once assigned, Editors can decide to reject a manuscript, continue with the peer review process, or request revisions before further peer-review.
Editors will submit their recommendations that are based on reports submitted by the reviewers to the Editor in Chief. Revised manuscripts will be reassessed by the Editors who will aim to work with the original reviewers to make a new recommendation.
The Editor in Chief is the final authority in the decision-making process for all submissions.
In the event of delays, authors will be informed of the reason for the delay and given the opportunity to withdraw their manuscript.
Once the peer-review process is completed, the authors will receive anonymous peer-review reports along with the editorial decision on their manuscript. Peer-review reports will not be posted publicly in any medium. The submitted material is considered confidential and must not be used in any way until after its publication. If it is suspected that a reviewer has appropriated an author’s ideas or data, the Editorial Board will handle the matter in accordance with the relevant
COPE’s guideline.
Authors can recommend peer-reviewers during submission. The handling editor is the sole authority to decide whether or not recommended peer-reviewers will be invited to evaluate the manuscript.
Potential peer reviewers should inform the Editor of any possible conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. Informing the editor of any potential conflicts of interest allows them to make an informed decision about whether or not to invite the potential reviewer to participate in the review process. It also helps to ensure the integrity and transparency of the review process.
Communications between Editors and peer reviewers contain confidential information that should not be shared with third parties.
If the Editor-in-Chief or any of the associate editors is listed as an author on a submission, the editor concerned is removed from the evaluation process. Journal of Ecological Harmony will employ external editors to conduct the peer review process for manuscripts submitted by its editor-in-chief or associate editors. The process for appointing external editors is as follows:
Atatürk University Coordinatorship of Scientific Journals seeks out an expert in the field from outside Atatürk University and independent of the author's institution, and sends an invitation to review the manuscript. The invited editor is requested to create a record in the system and to manage and oversee the double-blind peer-review process. The invited editor acts independently when making decisions. The invited editor participating in the evaluation of the manuscript will be listed on the journal’s website together with their contact information. To maintain neutrality, we preserve the confidentiality of reviewers. Reviewers and external editors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest in order to promote transparency and ensure a reliable evaluation process. The final decision regarding the manuscript is made by the invited editor.
If an article's peer review is an exception to the journal’s usual policy, the type of the review it received will be displayed on the article to ensure the transparency and accountability of the review process.
Revisions
Submitting authors of manuscripts that require a “minor revision” or a “major revision” will receive the decision letter from the Editor in Chief. The decision letter will include the suggestions of the reviewers and editors along with a deadline to submit the revised and updated version of the manuscript.
When submitting a revised version of a paper, authors must submit a detailed “Response to the reviewers” that states point by point how each issue raised by the reviewers has been covered and where it can be found (each reviewer’s comment, followed by the author’s reply and line numbers where the changes have been made) as well as an annotated copy of the main document.
Revised manuscripts must be submitted within the time frame specified in the decision letter. If the revised version of the manuscript is not submitted within the allocated time, the revision option may be canceled. If the submitting author(s) believe that additional time is required, they should request an extension before the initial period is over.
Publication Ethics
All research involving human subjects, medical records, or human tissues must be reviewed and approved by a reviewer board, such as an institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee, before it is conducted. The name of the ethics committee that reviewed and approved the research, as well as the ethics committee approval number and date, should be included in the Methods section of the manuscript when it is submitted for publication. Additionally, the journal may require authors to provide a copy of the ethics committee approval as part of the manuscript submission process. This is to ensure that the research has been properly reviewed and approved, and to allow the journal to verify that the research meets the ethical standards required for publication.
If a study is exempted from the ethics committee approval, the authors must present a statement from the ethics committee explaining the reason for the exemption. This is to ensure that the research was reviewed by an ethics committee and that the decision to exempt the study was made in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.
Authors should provide detailed information on the ethical treatment of animals in their manuscript, including the measures taken to prevent pain and suffering. They can use the
ARRIVE checklist, which is designed to help authors provide this information in a clear and comprehensive manner.
In addition to the ethical treatment of animals, authors should also provide information on the measures taken to prevent pain and suffering. This is to ensure that the research is conducted in a humane manner, and to allow readers to verify that the research meets the relevant ethical standards.
If a manuscript is submitted to Journal of Ecological Harmony without ethics committee approval, the journal will review the manuscript according to the
COPE’s Research, Audit and Service Evaluations guideline. This guideline provides guidance on how to handle manuscripts that do not have ethics committee approval, and allows the journal to assess the risks and potential ethical concerns associated with publishing the research.
If the journal determines that the lack of ethics committee approval is a significant concern, the manuscript may be rejected after editorial review. This is to ensure that the journal maintains high ethical standards and only publishes research that has been properly reviewed and approved by an ethics committee.
For manuscripts concerning research involving human subjects, it is required to include a statement indicating that written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Informed consent should be documented in writing, and a copy of the informed consent form should be retained by the researchers for future reference.
In the case of research involving children under the age of 18, the parent or guardian of the child must provide informed consent on behalf of the child. This is because children are considered to be a vulnerable population and may not have the capacity to fully understand the risks and benefits of participating in research.
Information on informed consent should be provided in the Material and Methods section of the manuscript, along with any other relevant details about how the research was conducted.
If the manuscript reports the findings of a survey or interviews, the author must confirm that the participants gave their informed consent to participate in the study and for their personal details to be recorded if that is the case. If quotations or other attributable statements are included, these must be deidentified, or the manuscript must state that the person agreed to be named in the manuscript.
It is the responsibility of the authors to protect the anonymity of study participants, and to ensure that the research is conducted in a way that respects their privacy and confidentiality. This is especially important for photographs that may reveal the identity of patients, as the publication of such photographs without proper consent could potentially violate the rights of the individuals depicted.
To protect the anonymity of participants in photographs, the authors should obtain signed releases from the participants or their legal representatives. These releases should indicate that the participants have given their consent for the publication of the photographs, and should specify any restrictions or conditions on the use of the photographs. Information on the publication approval for photographs should be provided in the manuscript.
Plagiarism and Ethical Misconduct
All submissions are screened by a similarity detection software (Crossref Similarity Check Powered by iThenticate) multiple times during the peer-review and/or production processes.
When you are discussing others' (or your own) previous work, make sure that you cite the material correctly in every instance.
Authors are strongly recommended to avoid any form of plagiarism and ethical misconduct that are exemplified below.
• Citation manipulation: The practice of manipulating the number of citations received by an author, journal, or other publication through various means, such as self-citation, excessive citation of articles from the same journal, or the inclusion of honorary citations or citation stacking.
• Self- plagiarism (text-recycling): The practice of using overlapping sections or sentences from the author's previous publications without properly citing them. This is considered to be a form of plagiarism, as it involves using someone else's work (in this case, the author's own work) without proper attribution.
• Salami slicing: The practice of using the same data from a research study in several different articles. This is considered to be unethical, as it involves reporting the same hypotheses, population, and methods of a study in multiple papers.
• Data Fabrication: The addition of data that never occurred during the gathering of data or experiments. This is considered to be a form of research misconduct, as it involves presenting false or misleading information as if it were real data.
• Data Manipulation/Falsification: The practice of manipulating research data with the intention of giving a false impression. This can include manipulating images, removing outliers or "inconvenient" results, changing data points, and other forms of manipulation. This is also considered to be a form of research misconduct, as it involves presenting false or misleading information as if it were real data.
In the event of alleged or suspected research misconduct such as plagiarism, citation manipulation, or data falsification/fabrication, the Editorial Board will follow the appropriate
COPE flowcharts to ensure that the allegations or suspicions are handled in a fair, transparent, and consistent manner.
AUTHORSHIP
To become a writer, the following criteria must be met.
1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work.
2. Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content.
3. Final approval of the version to be published.
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work they have done, authors should also be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work to ensure that the contributions of all authors are accurately and appropriately acknowledged. Authors may use
CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) to provide information about individual contributions at the time of submission. It is expected that all authors agreed upon their individual contributions as shared by the corresponding author. The authors’ contribution statement will be published with the final article and should accurately reflect contributions to the work.
Furthermore, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors. This means that they should trust that their co-authors have conducted the research in an ethical and responsible manner, and that the data and results presented in the manuscript are accurate and reliable.
Individuals who do not meet all four of the authorship criteria should not be included as authors on the manuscript. However, they can still be acknowledged on the title page of the manuscript for their contributions to the research in order to recognize the contributions of these individuals and to provide transparency about who was involved in the research.
If the editorial board suspects a case of ghost, honorary or gift authorship, the submission will be suspended and the
relevant COPE flowchart and
COPE Policy on authorship and contributorship will be followed.
Change of Authorship
Any requests for changes to authorship, such as the removal or addition of authors, or changes in the order of authors, should be submitted to the editorial office with a letter stating the reasons for the change. The letter must be signed by all authors, including any who have been removed.
The journal’s Editorial Board will handle all requests for changes to authorship in a consistent and transparent manner, following the relevant
COPE flowchart guidelines. These procedures are in place to protect the integrity of the research and the reputation of all involved authors.
Declaration of Interests
Authors must reveal any relationships or interests that may lead to an inappropriate influence or bias in their work. This should be done by disclosing any possible conflicts of interest through the online submission system while submitting their manuscript.
Journal of Ecological Harmony also requires and encourages individuals involved in the peer review process of submitted manuscripts to disclose any existing or potential competing interests that might lead to potential bias.
The Editorial Board will handle cases of potential competing interests of editors, authors, or reviewers within the scope of relevant
COPE flowcharts.
Artificial Intelligence Policy
The use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools in articles published in the journal must be conducted within an ethical, transparent, and responsible framework. This policy defines the boundaries for the use of AI-assisted tools for authors, editors, and reviewers.
The journal follows the guidelines established by the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
ICMJE regarding the use of GAI-supported technologies in the manuscript preparation process. GAI tools cannot be accepted or listed as authors in academic or scientific studies. GAI has no authorship or evaluative authority; scientific publications must be based on the researcher’s original ideas and findings. GAI may be used for language editing during manuscript preparation (and this must be clearly stated in the article).
The journal is committed to supporting copyright and publication ethics regulations. Due to ongoing legal uncertainties or potential copyright violations related to AI-generated visual content, the use of such materials is generally not permitted in our publications, except in the following cases:
For visuals directly referenced in research on artificial intelligence, a statement must be included in the note section indicating that the image was generated using generative AI and specifying which GAI was used. Example: Note. The image was generated using artificial intelligence (DALL·E, OpenAI, 2026). This statement must also be described in detail in the article before the references.
Responsible and human-controlled use of generative GAI is essential. To ensure that the use of generative GAI systems is explainable and auditable, authors must verify the accuracy and appropriateness of AI-generated visuals and clearly describe the GAI methodology used in the manuscript. All content generated using generative GAI must comply with scientific standards and ethical rules.
Authors may use generative AI tools for language editing, proofreading, or technical improvement. However, the scientific content, analyses, and conclusions of the study remain entirely the responsibility of the authors. Original idea generation and hypothesis development are the responsibility of the author. Interpretation of findings, discussion, and conclusions must not be delegated to generative AI. Methods used in data analysis generated by GAI may raise ethical concerns. GAI systems cannot be listed as authors. If GAI is used, this must be clearly disclosed in the manuscript. The authors bear final responsibility for the accuracy and ethical compliance of AI-generated content. Confidential patient data, ethics committee–required data, or copyrighted materials must not be uploaded to GAI systems. GAI tools cannot create the scientific content of the study.
Editors may use GAI-supported systems for limited purposes such as language quality checks or similarity analysis during preliminary evaluation. However, editorial decisions are made solely by editors. Confidential patient data, ethics committee–required data, or copyrighted materials must not be uploaded to GAI systems.
Reviewers may not upload manuscript content under review to any GAI system, as this would violate data confidentiality. Reviewers may use AI tools only for language editing of the text they themselves have written. Reviewers are responsible for the scientific content of their reports.
Failure to provide proper disclosure, incomplete disclosure, or prohibited use constitutes a violation. In such cases, one or more of the following sanctions may be applied: manuscript rejection, post-publication retraction, editorial sanctions imposed by the journal, and institutional notification procedures.
Financial Disclosure
Journal of Ecological Harmony requires authors to disclose any financial support they received to conduct their research. This information should be included in the funding statement, which should be provided when the manuscript is submitted to the journal.
The funding statement should include the name of any granting agencies, the grant numbers, and a description of each funder's role in the research. If the funder had no role in the research, this should be stated in the funding statement as well. This information is important for readers to understand the potential biases and conflicts of interest that may exist in the research.
Post-Publication Correction Requests and Retractions
All post-publication correction requests are subject to editorial review. The editorial board will review the request and determine whether the correction is necessary and appropriate. The decision to publish a correction will be based on the nature of the error, its potential impact on the article, and the availability of supporting evidence. The editorial board may also consult with the authors, reviewers, and other experts as needed to make its decision. If the correction request is approved, the article will be corrected in the journal's archive.
The Editorial Board reviews cases following journal policies and
COPE guidelines.
If misconduct allegations are made by whistleblowers directly, the Editorial Board will follow the relevant
COPE’s flowchart. The journal will act in accordance with the
COPE's flowchart on how to respond to whistleblowers when concerns are raised about a published article on a social media site.
In some cases, an ombudsperson may be assigned to resolve claims that cannot be resolved internally.
To investigate potential ethical misconduct, the editorial board may share information with other editors-in-chief to conduct investigations more efficiently and effectively. If communication with the editor-in-chief is necessary, the editorial board will follow the relevant
COPE's recommendations.
If necessary, the journal may also contact institutions to inform them of suspected misconduct by researchers and provide evidence to support these concerns, following
COPE guidelines in the process.
In the event of ethical misconduct concerns, the editors will investigate the case according to COPE guidelines. If the investigation verifies the concern, the editors may issue a retraction notice. The retraction notice will be published in the journal and the article's record will be updated to reflect the retraction. The article will remain in the archives of the journal, but it will be clearly marked as retracted. The article's record will also be updated in the relevant indexes to reflect the retraction.
Withdrawal Requests
Withdrawal requests for an article are reviewed by the editorial board of the journal. To request the withdrawal of an article, the authors must send a letter signed by all authors stating their request and the reasons for withdrawal to the journal editor. The editorial board will then review the request and make a decision based on the reasons provided by the authors. If the request is approved, the article will be withdrawn from the journal and the authors will be notified of the decision. It is important to note that authors should not submit their work to another journal for evaluation until the withdrawal request has been approved. This is to avoid any potential conflicts of interest or duplication of publication.
Appeals and Complaint
The editorial board of the journal is responsible for addressing appeals and complaints in accordance with the guidelines and
recommendations of the COPE. If an author has an appeal or complaint, they should contact the editorial office directly to discuss their concerns. The editorial board will review the case and make a decision based on
COPE guidelines.
The editor-in-chief has the final authority in the decision-making process for all appeals and complaints. In some cases, an ombudsperson may be assigned to resolve claims that cannot be resolved internally. It is important to note that the journal follows a fair and transparent process for handling appeals and complaints, with the goal of preserving the integrity of the scientific record.
Preprint Policy
Journal of Ecological Harmony does not consider preprints as prior publication, which means that authors are allowed to present and discuss their findings on a non-commercial preprint server before submitting their work to the journal.
However, authors must provide the journal with the preprint server deposition of their article, along with its DOI, during the initial submission process.
If the article is accepted and published in the journal, it is the responsibility of the authors to update the archived preprint and link it to the published version of the article. This helps to ensure that readers can easily access the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Permission Policy
Under this license, users are allowed to share, adapt, reproduce and distribute the journal's content for non-commercial purposes, provided that they give appropriate credit to the original author and the journal.
Disclaimer
The statements or opinions expressed in the manuscripts published in the journal reflect the views of the author(s) and not the views of the editors, editorial board, and/or publisher. The editors, editorial board, and publisher are not responsible for the content of the manuscripts and do not necessarily endorse the views expressed in them. It is the responsibility of the authors to ensure that their work is accurate and well-researched, and the views expressed in their manuscripts are their own. The editors, editorial board, and publisher simply provide a platform for the authors to share their work with the scientific community.
June 22, 2026
Page
1-8
