Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

The governance structure of JNT and its acceptance procedures are transparent and designed to ensure the highest quality of published material. Journal of New Theory adheres to the international standards developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).


The peer-review process is summarized as follows:

1. After a manuscript is submitted to the journal, an Editor is assigned to process it.

2. Editor produces a similarity report of the submission, which excludes Sources less than 1% and Bibliography, on iThenticate and uploads this report to the system for Reviewers to consider the report during the review.
a. The manuscript is rejected if the similarity rate (SR) is greater than 50%.
b. If 30% < SR < 50%, Editor checks the manuscript for plagiarism and whether it complies with the JNT’s style guide and the required sections Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion are included in the paper. Editor then requests Author to resubmit it as SR reduced to 30% or less. If either or both of the above cases exist(s), then Author is required to reformat the paper following the style guide and/or to include the missing section(s).
c. If SR ≤ 30%, Editor checks the manuscript for plagiarism and whether it complies with the JNT’s style guide and the required sections Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion are included in the paper. If Editor detects a likely case of plagiarism or realizes incongruence with the style guide and/or an absent/incomplete section, then Author is required to revise the manuscript before resubmission.

3. If required, Editor corresponds with Author until the article is ready for review.
If Author does not accept to resubmit the manuscript, the manuscript is rejected.
If Author has failed to duly satisfy the listed requests, the manuscript is rejected.

4. If Editor assigns an Area Editor,
a. Area Editor appoints at least four reviewers, two of which are proposed by Author.
b. Area Editor judges Reject, Minor revision, or Major Revision based on reviewers’ comments. If the decision is Reject, Area Editor notifies Editor of the decision.
If Author does not accept to revise the manuscript, the manuscript is rejected.
If Author has failed to upload the revised version and the compulsory files by the due date, the manuscript is rejected.
c. When the Minor Revision is completed, Area Editor reviews the revised paper and the accompanying response letter. Area Editor then notifies Editor of the decision.
d. When the Major Revision is completed, Area Editor forwards the revised paper and the accompanying response letter to Reviewers. Area Editor notifies Editor of the decision made based on the reviewers’ comments.

If Editor does not assign an Area Editor,
a. Editor appoints at least four reviewers, two of which are proposed by Author.
b. Editor judges Reject, Minor Revision, or Major Revision based on reviewers’ comments.
If Author does not accept to revise the manuscript, the manuscript is rejected.
If Author has failed to upload the revised version and the compulsory files by the due date, the manuscript is rejected.
c. When the Minor Revision is completed, Editor reviews the revised paper and the accompanying response letter. Editor then notifies Author of the decision.
d. When the Major Revision is completed, Editor forwards the revised paper and the accompanying response letter to Reviewers. Editor then notifies Author of the decision made based on the reviewers’ comments.

5. Editor completes the process by forwarding the accepted manuscript to Layout Editor, Proofreading (Language) Editor, and Production Editor.


Workflow Settings

Additional time for all assigned users when Editor extends the due date: 10 Days

Time to make an action when a new submission arrives before becoming overdue: 10 Days

Time for Editor to assign an Editor in "checked" status before becoming overdue: 10 Days

Time for the assigned Editor to take an action in "With Editor" status before becoming overdue: 10 Days

Time for the assigned editors to take an action in "Ready for Decision" status before becoming overdue: 10 Days

Time for Editor to make a decision before becoming overdue: 10 Days

Time for the assigned Editor to prepare the article for publishing after it is accepted before becoming overdue: 10 Days

Time for the Copyeditor, Statistics Editor, Layout Editor, and Proofreader to complete the task before becoming overdue: 20 Days

Time for the author to respond to the requested action - i.e, resubmission or revision requested, before becoming overdue: 10 Days

Time for the author to take an action before becoming overdue: 30 Days

Time for the reviewer(s) to respond to the invitation before becoming overdue: 10 Days

Time for the reviewer to review the article after accepting the invitation before becoming overdue: 30 Days


Publisher’s Ethical Responsibilities

Journal of New Theory is in the public interest and non-profit.

Editors are faculty members who hold at least a PhD degree.

Editorial Board consists of an Editor-in-Chief, three Associate Editor-in-Chiefs, Area Editors, a Statistics Editor, a Language Editor, two Layout Editors, and a Production Editor.

In a year, the number of articles in which Editors are its Authors/Co-Authors cannot exceed 1/5 of the total number of articles published in the respective year.


Responsibilities of Editorial Board

Editorial Board is responsible for every manuscript submitted to the journal.

Editorial Board regularly makes an effort to improve the journal and increase its publication quality.

Editorial Board determines and implements the journal's policies, such as publication, blind review, and ethical principles.

Editorial Board assesses whether intellectual property rights have been observed and checks manuscripts and the journal for unscientific and unethical behaviours - e.g., plagiarism.

Editorial Board is responsible for appointing an expert reviewer to process manuscripts.

Editorial Board is responsible for managing the review process.

Ethical Responsibilities of Editorial Board

While deciding whether to publish submitted manuscripts, Editors pay attention to consider the original value and similarity rate of the manuscripts, their contribution to the literature, the validity and reliability of the research method, the clarity of the language, and the journal’s purpose and scope.

Editors carry out the policies of blind review and review process, among the journal’s publishing policies, keep confidential the identity information of Reviewers, and ensure each manuscript is reviewed objectively and in time.

Editors send manuscripts by taking notice of the editors and referees’ field of expertise, and they pay attention to an objective and independent review of the manuscript.

Editors endeavour to ensure the Reviewers' diversity and change.

Editors protect personal data in reviewed manuscripts.

Editors protect human rights in the manuscripts and document the participants’ explicit consent. They reject the manuscripts if the authors do not have the Ethics Committee’s approval of the manuscripts’ participants.

Editors make provisions against misconduct. If there are misconduct complaints, they make an objective investigation and share the complaints’ findings.

Editors consider the consistent criticism of manuscripts published in the journal and provide the right to reply to Author(s) for the criticism.

Editors investigate the complaints submitted to the journal and make necessary statements.


Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

In reviewing the manuscripts, the single-blind refereeing principle is applied.

Reviewers do not contact directly with the authors. The manuscript review forms and the notes specified on the manuscript, and requests for correction are conveyed to the author(s) by Editors through the journal management system.

Reviewers must only accept manuscripts related to their field of expertise.

Reviewers should notice the objectivity and confidentiality of the review process. In a conflict of interest, Reviewers should deny reviewing the manuscripts and acquaint Editors.

Reviewers should review the manuscripts in constructive comments by academic ethic principles and avoid personal comments containing insults and hostility.

Reviewers should review their accepted manuscripts within the time specified.

Reviewers should provide detailed reasons for acceptance or refusal.

The report you prepared must include details. The reference-excluded similarity report of the manuscript is available in the Editorial System.

Reviewers do not request the Author(s) to add Reviewers' articles as a reference if it is not required.

Reviewers avoid personal comments containing insults and hostility.


Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

Author(s) should not submit to the Journal of New Theory a manuscript they have published elsewhere or submitted to be published elsewhere.

The manuscript submitted by Author(s) should be original.

Author(s) should pay attention to ethical principles for references used in the manuscript.

The names of people who do not contribute to the manuscript should not be added as Author(s).

It should not be suggested to change the order of Author(s), remove Author(s), or add Author(s) for the manuscript submitted for publication.

If information or data about the manuscript is requested from Author(s) during the review process, Author(s) should provide the editors’ asked information.

Author(s) should provide Ethics Committee’s approval for the research that requires quantitative or qualitative data collection methods such as experiments, questionnaires, scales, interviews, observations, and focus group studies. The document indicating the Ethics Committee decision should be uploaded with the manuscript’s application to the system.