Scientific Responsibility

In terms of scientific publishing standards, the articles to be submitted should be prepared in accordance with the criteria of the International Medical Journal Editors Board (ICMJE), Publication Ethics Committee (COPE).
https://publicationethics.org/files/Full_set_of_flowcharts_Turkey_2017%20%281%29.pdf
http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html

• The articles to be submitted must comply with research and publication ethics. The responsibility of the articles belongs to their authors.
• Articles should not have been published anywhere before and / or should not be in the evaluation process for publication.
• In order for the evaluation process to begin, the articles must be submitted with the Copyright Transfer Form signed by all authors. For author ranking, the signature order in the Copyright Transfer Form is taken into consideration.
• Corresponding author bears the responsibility of the final version of the article on behalf of all authors.

Ethical Responsibility

• Compliance with the Helsinki Declaration Principles (https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/) is sought in all studies involving the element of "Human". In such studies, the authors should state that they carried out the study in accordance with these principles in the MATERIAL AND METHODS section, and that they received approval from the ethics committees of their institutions and "informed consent" from the people who participated in the study.
• If the item "Animal" is used in the study, the authors should be informed in the MATERIAL AND METHODS section of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/guide-for-the-care-and-use- of-laboratory-animals.pdf), they should state that they protect animal rights in their work and that they get approval from the ethics committees of their institutions.
• In case presentations, "informed consent" should be obtained from the patients.
• Ethics committee approval information should be stated in the MATERIAL and METHODS section, together with the name, approval date and number of the committee.
• If there is a direct-indirect commercial connection or financial support institution in the study, the authors; used commercial product, drug, company, etc. They should indicate to the editor on the presentation page that they have no commercial relationship with or what kind of relationship (consultant, other agreements) they have.
• Authors are responsible for reporting all personal and financial relationships related to the study. It must be clearly declared whether there is any conflict of interest associated with the application and / or evaluation of the article.
• The authors are responsible for the compliance of the articles with scientific and ethical rules.

1. Authors

Authors must comply with all authorship policies and conflict of interest statements detailed in Sections IIA and B of this document.

These are called predatory journals because of the rapidly increasing numbers of journals called 'scientific journals' but that publish all the posts for a fee without any screening for profit. It has become more important to maintain some standards in scientific journalism. For this reason, our journal follows the recommendations of organizations such as ICMJE, COPE and WAME and complies with the standards.

2. Journals

    a. security

Manuscripts submitted to journals are privileged communications that are the private, confidential property of the author, and authors can be harmed by premature disclosure of any or all the details of a manuscript.
For this reason, editors should not share with anyone other than the authors and reviewers whether it has been handled and reviewed, its content and status in the review process, including the reviewers' critique and eventual fate. Requests from third parties to use reviews in manuscripts and legal proceedings should be politely refused, and editors should do their best not to provide such confidential material as subpoenas.
Editors should also make it clear that the reviewers must keep the manuscripts, related materials, and information they contain strictly confidential. Reviewers and editorial staff should not publicly discuss the author's work, and reviewers should not endorse the ideas of the authors prior to publication. Reviewers should not keep the article for their personal use and should destroy the hard copies of the articles and delete the soft copies after submitting their reviews.
When an article is rejected, it is best practice for journals to delete copies from their editorial systems unless local regulations require retention. Journals that maintain copies of rejected manuscripts should disclose this practice in the Authors' Notice.
When an article is published, journals should retain copies of the original submission, review, revision, and correspondence for at least three years, and possibly permanently, depending on local regulations, to answer future questions about the work.
Editors should not publish reviewers' comments without the permission of reviewers and authors. If journal policy will protect authors against the reviewer's identity and comments are not signed, that identity should not be disclosed to the author or others without the express written consent of the reviewers.
Confidentiality may need to be breached if fraud or alleged fraud is present, but editors notify authors or reviewers of their willingness to do so, and confidentiality should be honored otherwise.

    b. Timing

Editors should do their best to ensure that manuscripts are processed in a timely manner with the resources available to them. If editors are going to publish an article, they should try to do it on time and planned delays should be negotiated with the authors. If a journal has no intention of continuing an article, editors should try to reject the article as soon as possible to allow the author to submit it to a different journal.
        
     c. Peer Review
In the Çukurova Anestezi ve Cerrahi Bilimler Dergisi, each article is evaluated by at least 2 reviewers.
The peer review process is double blind.
Randomly selected samples are examined by an independent organization in each issue. https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/en/dergi/detay/2338/cukurova-anestezi-ve-cerrahi-bilimler-dergisi
The journal stores all referee evaluations digitally and can submit them for review by relevant institutions at any time.
Reviewers are announced on the website at the end of each issue and in the full presentation of the issue.
Peer review is a critical evaluation of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are not usually part of the editorial staff. Peer review is an important extension of the scientific process, as impartial, independent, critical evaluation forms the core of all scientific work, including scientific research.
The true value of peer review is debated, but the process facilitates a fair hearing for an article among members of the scientific community. More practically, it helps editors decide which articles are appropriate for their journal. Peer review often helps authors and editors improve the quality of their reporting.
It is the editor's responsibility to ensure that reviewers have access to all material related to the review of the manuscript, including additional material for email-only, for selection of appropriate reviewers, and to ensure that reviewer reviews are appropriately evaluated and interpreted in context.
A peer-reviewed journal is not obligated to submit articles submitted for review and is not obligated to follow up on reviewers' suggestions, positive or negative. The editor of a journal is ultimately responsible for the selection of all content, and editorial decisions may be made aware of matters unrelated to the quality of a manuscript, such as journal relevance. An editor may reject any article at any time, including after it has been accepted when concerns about the integrity of the work arise.
Journals may differ in the number and types of articles they submit for review, the number and types of reviewers they seek for each article, whether the review process is open or blind, and other aspects of the review process. For this reason, and as a service to authors, journals should publish a description of the peer review process.
Journals should ultimately review their decision to accept or reject a paper and acknowledge the reviewers' contribution to their journals. Editors are encouraged to share reviewers' comments with reviewers of the same article so that reviewers can learn from each other during the review process.
As part of peer-review, editors are encouraged to review research protocols, statistical analysis plans if separate from the protocol, and/or contracts related to project-specific studies. Editors should encourage authors to make such documents public at the time of or after publication before accepting such work for publication. Some journals may require these documents to be publicly posted as a condition of their acceptance.
Log requirements for independent data analysis and availability of publicly available data were published during this revision; this reflects evolving views on the importance of data availability for pre- and post-publication peer review. Some journal editors currently request statistical analysis of trial data by an independent biostatistician before accepting studies for publication. Others encourage or request authors to share their data with others for review or reanalysis, while others indicate whether study data may be used by third parties for viewing and/or reanalysis. Each journal should establish and publish its own specific requirements for data analysis and registration in a place easily accessible to potential authors.
Some people believe that true scientific peer review only begins when a paper is published. In this regard, medical journals should have a mechanism for readers to submit comments, questions or criticisms on published articles, and authors should respond appropriately and cooperate with requests for journal data or request additional information regarding the paper. occurs after publication (see Chapter III).

    d. Integrity

Editorial decisions should be based on the relevance of a manuscript to the journal and its contribution to the evidence for its originality, quality, and important questions. These decisions should not be influenced by business interests, personal relationships, or agendas, or by findings that are negative or credibly question accepted wisdom. In addition, authors should submit for publication or make it publicly available, and editors should not consider publication, exclude studies with findings that are not statistically significant or have inconclusive findings. Such studies may provide evidence that evidence pooled with other studies through meta-analysis can still help answer important questions, and public recording of such negative or inconclusive findings may prevent unintended duplication of effort or other researchers considering similar studies. can be valuable to
Journals should clearly outline the appeals process and have a system in place to respond to appeals and complaints.

     e. Journal Metrics

Journal impact factor is widely misused as a proxy for research and journal quality and as a measure of the benefits of research projects or individual researchers, including their eligibility for recruitment, promotion, hiring, awards, or research funding. The ICMJE recommends that journals reduce the emphasis on impact factor as a single measure, instead offering a set of articles and journal metrics related to their readers and authors.

3. Reviewers

Manuscripts submitted to journals are privileged communications that are the private, confidential property of the author, and authors may suffer from early disclosure.
Therefore, the reviewers should keep the articles and the information they contain strictly confidential. Reviewers should not publicly discuss the author's work and properly write down the authors' ideas before the article is published. Reviewers should not keep the article for their personal use and should destroy the copies of the articles after reviewing them.
Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to review requests and submit reviews within the agreed timeframe. Reviewers' comments should be constructive, honest, and polite.
Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest and withdraw themselves from peer review if there is a conflict.

The journal ’‘Journal of Cukurova Anesthesia and Surgical Sciences’’ are committed to publishing only original material, i.e., material that has neither been published elsewhere, nor is under review elsewhere.
The journal ’‘Journal of Cukurova Anesthesia and Surgical Sciences’’ uses software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts: Manuscripts in which plagiarism or textual borrowings are found without reference to the original source are rejected by the editorial board for publication in the journal.

The journal ’‘Journal of Cukurova Anesthesia and Surgical Sciences’’ will judge any case of plagiarism on its own merits. If plagiarism is detected, either by the editors, peer reviewers or editorial staff at any stage before publication of a manuscript - before or after acceptance, during editing or at page proof stage, we will alert the author(s), asking her or him to either rewrite the text or quote the text exactly and to cite the original source. If the plagiarism is extensive - that is, if at least 25% of the original submission is plagiarized - the article may be rejected and the author's institution/employer notified.

The manuscripts in which plagiarism is detected are handled based on the extent of plagiarism present in the manuscript: if < 25% plagiarism – the manuscript is immediately sent back to the authors for content revision, and if > 25% plagiarism – the manuscript is rejected without editorial review. The authors are advised to revise the plagiarized parts of the manuscript and resubmit it as a fresh manuscript. The percentage of plagiarism is calculated by software and also assessed manually.

If plagiarism is detected after publication, the Journal will conduct an investigation. If plagiarism is found, the journal editorial office will contact the author's institute and funding agencies. The paper containing the plagiarism will be marked on each page of the PDF. Depending on the extent of the plagiarism, the paper may also be formally retracted.

Use quotation marks around words taken verbatim from a source Change no part of quotation within the context of the sentence Use single marks for a quotation within a quotation Use ellipses (a space and three periods) for a part of the quotation omitted. Use brackets around added words Limit the use of direct quotes
Attempt to paraphrase the information, or summarize the information derived from a variety of sources using own words.
Authors are responsible for obtaining copyright permission for reproducing illustrations, tables, figures taken from other authors and/or source. Permission must be placed at the foot of each figure.

Some authors have written several chapters for several different books that are changed only slightly. Each manuscript is copyrighted when published. Because the author no longer owns the rights to these words, one should not plagiarize them. Most editors and reviewers would argue that self-plagiarism is unethical. Thus, an author cannot copy one’s own material for a new manuscript without permission of the copyright holder. Alternatives include using quotes around short phrases of own work and citing appropriate references.