The publication process in JOEEP is based on the principle of ethical and fair distribution and development of information. Accordingly, JOEEP undertakes to follow the implementation guide of the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).
Please inform to firstname.lastname@example.org when an unethical situation is encountered.
Studies requiring an Ethics Committee's permit
The necessary permissions from the ethical committees or commissions for studies requiring an Ethics Committee's permit (studies requiring a questionnaire or scale, including interviews and observations; developed by others such as documents, pictures, questionnaires, etc., and requiring use permits) have been obtained before conducting research. It must be specified in the content or presented as an attachment. In the absence of these permissions, the publication is returned to the author during the preliminary examination phase.
The raw data related to the researches in the referee evaluations must be presented when requested by the referees. It is mandatory to provide the data when necessary after the publication of the article.
• The editor and field editor(s) should acknowledge receipt of submitted manuscripts to the authors within seven days. The editor and field editor(s) have responsibility in order to determine which of the submitted manuscripts could be published.
• The editor and field editors are responsible for the equal, fair and timely completion of the evaluation process through expert reviewer(s) in the relevant field. Unless any additional reviewers are required, the editor or field editors ensures that the article submitted to the journal is evaluated by at least two external and independent reviewers.
• First of all, the submitted manuscripts will be controlled by the editor and the field editor(s) in case of the plagiarism possibility. In this stage, the detected plagiarized manuscripts by the editor and the field editor(s) will be rejected by the editor and field editor(s). No way that the plagiarized manuscripts will be taken in the consideration process.
• The unpublished data and method in the submitted manuscripts should not be exploited/use by anyone in her/his study without the written permission of the author.
• Reviewer (s) should provide clear and detailed reasons for the candidate papers to report in the direction of rejection.
• The submitted manuscripts should be evaluated in accordance to the framework of solely intellectual norms in regardless of social, religious, cultural, economic background.
• The submitted manuscripts should not be disclosed no one other than the reviewer, the publisher, the editor assistants and the author(s) of such manuscripts by the editor and the field editor(s).
• When obtained interest struggle/conflict among the submitted manuscripts and other author(s) and/or institution, such submitted manuscripts should be recuse himself or herself from the review process.
• The final decision concerning the acceptance or rejection of the submitted manuscripts belongs to the editor. This situation will be decided with reference to the originality and significance of the submitted manuscripts.
• The editor should not oblige the authors to cite any articles or papers in the journal as the submitted manuscripts of the authors to be able to accept in the journal.
• The editor or field editor(s) are responsible for following business processes without compromising intellectual property rights and ethical standards.
• The reviewers have responsibility to the editor to inform the editor and the field editors regarding the review process of the submitted manuscript in case the reviewers do not feel enough qualified in order to review the assigned manuscript of if they cannot complete the review process on time.
• The reviewers should complete her/his task in the respect to principle of secrecy. Reviewers should not share or discuss any data regarding the submitted study with no one except the editor and the field editor(s).
• The reviewer should not disclose and share any data/content and opinions of the submitted manuscripts and should not use personal interest. Furthermore, the reviewers should not use any data of the unpublished paper.
• The criticism of the reviewers should be based on objective and scientific perspective and also the reviewers should avoid from personal criticism against the author(s). The reviewers are supposed to support her or his opinions by providing clear and tangible proofs.
• If the reviewers detect any similarities between the assigned manuscript and another published articles in the journal or in another journal, they are supposed to notify the editor about this situation.
• The reviewers should not take any part in evaluation process of the submitted manuscripts with author(s) who have competition, cooperation or other kind of relations or links.
• The proposal of the reviewer(s) appointed to evaluate the paper should be scientifically reasonable for referencing his own work.
• Authors who submit a research article to the journal should pay attention to the original results and discussions that emphasize the importance of the study in the content of the article. If the uploaded article is a review article or other type of article, its contents must be concrete and objective.
• The author (s) may request raw data on their articles within the framework of evaluation processes, in which case the author(s) should be prepared to submit the expected data and information to the editors' board and the scientific committee.
• Authors should basically not publish a text describing the same research in more than one article and submit it to a journal.
• The author (s) should not submit the same article, partially or entirely, to more than one journal. This type of behavior is unethical and not accepted by the journal.
• Authors should provide data on their work within the framework of ethical principles. The publisher, editor, and referee may request the raw data that underpin the work, from the author (s).
• Studies submitted to the journal should contain sufficient source information and details. Fraudulent and deliberate misrepresentation is unacceptable as it will lead to unethical situations.
• Unethical issues such as plagiarism, controversial and misrepresentation are never acceptable in the content of an article.
• The submitted manuscripts should be original and the originality of the study should be ensured by the author(s). If others’ papers and/or words are used in the context of the submitted manuscript, the reference should be provided in accordance to appropriate style. Also, excerpts should be in an appropriate style in accordance to the writing rules of the journal and scientific ethics. The authorities are supposed to refer to other publishments which effect the essence of their submitted studies.
• The authors are supposed to notify a conflict of interest, financial sources and foundations if any of them are supported their studies.
All the person(s) who contributed to the submitted manuscript in the respect of design, interpretation or implementation should be written on the submitted manuscript. All participations contributed in essence, should be listed respectively. Also, apart these persons should be added to the part of “Acknowledgement”.
If the author detects any flaw or error(s) in the context of the submitted manuscript, the author is responsible to urgently notify this situation to the editor or the publisher in behalf of collaboration in order to correct such error(s) or flaw(s).
Peer Review Process
This journal implements a double-blind peer review. After an initial screening process to verify scope and format of article, each scientific paper is reviewed by at least two Professional reviewers. The journal provides feed back to authors about their articles’ status within three months.
The articles which are sent to the JOEEP evaluated by the process of bilateral blind review and published with free access electronically.
JOEEP employs double blind review policy and according to that both the referees and author/s remain anonymous throughout the review process.
Authors submit their manuscripts to JOEEP via Dergipark online submission system.
Upon submission, the article is subjected to a preliminary editorial assessment for scope, relevance and other requirements.
Manuscripts which do not meet the journal’s requirements are either rejected or returned for revisions at this inital point.
If the revised manuscript fullfills all the requirements, the editor assignes it to at least two reviewers with relevant expertise.
The editor sends invitations to potential reviewers through editorial manager. Those reviewers are to response the invitation in 7 days.
If the invitation/s are rejected, further one are issued until the required number of acceptances is obtained.
The reviewers have one month to check the paper.
Depending on the reviewers’ decision, the manuscript may be approved, rejected or sent back for revision.
If the paper is rejected by both of the reviewers, it is rejected immediately. If it is rejected by one of the referees, it is sent to a third one for review. The final decision regarding the manuscript is given after the third review.
If the manuscript is sent back for a revision, the author revise and submit the revised paper in 15 days.
The editor and/or the reviewers re-evaluate the paper, do their recommendations. If further revisions are required the manuscript is sent back to the author and re-evaluated again.
Lastly, the editor decides whether to accept or reject the manuscript.
The author is informed about each step of this procedure.
All candidate articles sent to JOEEP are scanned with software such as iThenticate and Turnitin. The similarity rate of the entire article must be less than 25% and the similarity rate for one source must be less than 3%. JOEEP reserves the right to reject papers leading to plagiarism or self-plagiarism.