Author Ethical Responsibilities:
Authors submitting manuscripts to the Journal of MTU are expected to adhere to the following ethical responsibilities:
• Authors must submit their own original work to the journal. If they are utilizing or presenting results from other works in the manuscript, they must accurately and completely cite in-text and end-of-text references.
• Individuals who did not contribute intellectually to the work should not be listed as authors.
• Conflicting interests or relationships must be disclosed if present in the submitted articles.
• Authors may be asked to provide raw data during the review process, and in such cases, authors should be prepared to submit their data and information to the relevant publication and scientific committees.
• Authors must document ethical committee approval and informed consent for all research studies involving patients, patient records, research participants, or databases.
• For images that may reveal the identity of the patient, authors must provide written consent from the patient(s) on whom the report is based.
• Authors are obligated to inform the editor if they notice an error or conflicting result in their work during the early stages of publication or in the publication process. They must collaborate with the editors during the correction or retraction process.
• Authors cannot submit the same study to more than one journal simultaneously. Each submission can only be made after the completion of the previous one. A study published in another journal cannot be submitted to the Journal of MTU.

Editor's Ethical Responsibilities:
Editors must have the following ethical responsibilities based on the "COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors," published by COPE, and open access.
1.1. General Duties and Responsibilities

Should strive to meet the needs of readers and authors.
Must make efforts to continually improve their journals.
Must conduct the process to ensure the quality of the published journal.
Must support freedom of expression.
Must uphold the integrity of academic records (index).
Must maintain and not compromise intellectual and ethical standards.
Should always be prepared to publish corrections, clarifications, article withdrawal letters, and apologies.
1.2. Relationships with Readers
Readers should be informed about who financed the research or other academic work, the role of the funders in the research and publication, and, if so, what it was.
1.3. Relationships with Authors
Editor's decisions on accepting or rejecting an article must be based on the importance, originality, and clarity of the article, its relevance to the validity of the study, and the scope of the journal.
The editor should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are detected with the submission.
New editors should not overturn publication decisions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are detected.
An explanation of the peer review process should be published, and editors should provide information on changes in the disclosed process.
Journals should have a defined process for authors to appeal editorial decisions.
Editors should publish a guide for authors. This guide should be regularly updated.
1.4. Relationships with Reviewers
Editors should handle all expectations of reviewers confidentially and privately and create a guide on how submitted articles should be reviewed.
Before accepting to review an article, the editor should consider whether there are potential conflicts of interest for the reviewers.
Editors should have a system that guarantees the confidentiality of the identities of the reviewer panel unless they declare that they use an open review system.
The editor can write a thank-you note in the journal for reviewers invited and reviewed for a specific article.
1.5. Relationships with Editorial Board Members
The editor should provide new editorial board members with guidance on everything expected of them and continually inform existing members of new policies and developments.
1.6. Relationships with Journal Owners and Publishers
The editor should be based on the principle of editorial independence.
The editor must decide which article to publish based on the quality of the article and its suitability for the journal without interference from the owner or publisher.
The editor must have a written agreement regarding the relationships with the journal's owner and/or publisher.
1.7. Editorial and Peer Review Process
Editors should make efforts to ensure that the peer review process in their journal is fair, impartial, and timely.
Editors should have systems in place to ensure that the materials sent to their journals remain confidential during the review process.
Editors should strive to ensure the quality of the materials published by recognizing that different sections of their journals have different purposes and standards.
Reviewer Ethical Responsibilities:
The review process is conducted based on the double-blind review principle. Reviewers do not communicate directly with authors; their reviews and comments are processed through the journal management system. During this process, review forms and the opinions of reviewers on full texts are assigned to authors by the editor.
Reviewers:
• Should only agree to review within their areas of expertise.
• Must evaluate in an unbiased and confidential manner.
• Should inform the journal editor if they perceive conflicts of interest and refuse to review the article in the review process.
• Must destroy reviewed articles after the review process in accordance with the principle of confidentiality.
• Reviewers can only use the final versions of the articles they have reviewed after they have been published.
• Should objectively review the article based on its content, and national, gender, religious, and political beliefs, as well as economic concerns, should not affect the evaluation.
• Should review the article in a constructive and gentle tone, avoiding hostility, slander, and personal comments. They must accept the reviewed article within the specified ethical rules and review it in a timely manner.
• Reviewers are required to complete the Peer Review Form for the articles they review. They must state whether the articles they reviewed are publishable or not, and they must explain their decisions and reasons in this form.
• Reviewers will be given a review period of 20 days. Reviewers will be notified as the deadline approaches. Reviewers who cannot complete the review by the deadline may contact the editor to request additional time. Reviewers must pay maximum attention to the review period.