Publication Ethics

The KADEM Journal of Women’s Studies is committed to upholding the ethical principles and standards recommended by recognized bodies such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the guidelines set forth by the Council of Science Editors (CSE) regarding the roles, responsibilities, and ethical standards expected of editors in peer-reviewed publications, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (a joint declaration by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME). These standards are designed to support ethical conduct, transparency, and responsible publishing practices within the academic community.

By aligning with these practices, the journal strives to ensure that all published research maintains a high level of academic integrity and meets the ethical expectations of the scholarly world.

Ethics Committee Approval

The journal considers compliance with ethical principles in research a fundamental publication criterion. For all studies involving data collection from human participants—regardless of research type or methodology—a valid ethics committee approval is mandatory. Within this framework, an ethics committee decision must be provided for studies that fall into the following categories:

• Qualitative research conducted through methods such as interviews, focus groups, and observation,
• Quantitative research involving data collection through surveys, scales, experiments, or similar tools,
• Psychological tests, educational intervention programs, experimental or quasi-experimental designs,
• All applied studies involving data collection processes conducted online or in person,
• Archival research that includes identifiable or potentially identifiable personal data.

Ethics approval may be obtained not only from relevant university committees but also, when necessary, from ethics boards of public institutions or professional organizations.

If a study does not require ethics committee approval, this must be explicitly stated by the author(s) in the manuscript, along with a justification, and this explanation will be subject to peer review. In such cases, the author(s) must provide a valid rationale. In the absence of ethics approval, the relevant COPE guidelines will apply.

Ethics approval details must be included in the Method section of the manuscript, with institutional identifiers anonymized (e.g., written as XXX):

Example: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of XXX University (Date: [dd.mm.yyyy], Approval No: [number]).

Informed Consent

For research involving human participants, authors must confirm that written or verbal informed consent was obtained. For participants under the age of 18, consent must be obtained from a parent or legal guardian. In data collection processes such as surveys or interviews, participants must provide consent for their data to be used. Unless explicit permission for open use is obtained, personal identifying information must be kept confidential.
In particular, the use of photographs or other identifiable materials requires the protection of participants' privacy and the withholding of their names, and this is the responsibility of the authors. All necessary consent forms must be signed and securely stored. Participant consent should be clearly stated in the Method section of the manuscript.

Plagiarism and Ethical Misconduct

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are subjected to several checks throughout the peer review and publication stages, including screenings with plagiarism detection tools (Ithenticate by CrossCheck). Authors must ensure that all referenced materials from existing literature are properly cited. Reproducing content such as text, tables, or figures from any source and presenting it as original work constitutes plagiarism, regardless of whether the source is cited. Simply including a source in the references does not eliminate the responsibility to maintain academic integrity.

Authors are strongly advised to refrain from all types of plagiarism and unethical practices, some of which are outlined below:

• Citation Manipulation: The intentional effort by authors to artificially increase the citation count of a particular author, journal, or group of publications. This can involve excessive self-citation, disproportionately citing articles from the same journal, including unnecessary or unwarranted citations, or constructing citation clusters designed to boost metrics.
• Self-Plagiarism: The reuse of portions or sentences from an author’s previously published work without appropriate citation. Although the original author is the same, failing to reference previous publications constitutes a form of plagiarism because it involves presenting previously disseminated content as new.
• Salami Slicing: The practice of splitting data from a single research project into multiple publications. This includes reporting identical hypotheses, sample populations, and methodologies across several papers and is considered unethical due to the redundancy and misrepresentation of research output.
• Data Fabrication: The inclusion of data in a study that were never actually collected or observed during experiments or research. Presenting fabricated information as genuine data constitutes a serious breach of research ethics.
• Data Manipulation/Falsification: Altering research data in a way that misleads readers or distorts findings. This may involve image editing, removal of outliers or undesirable results, changing data points, or other deceptive practices. Such actions are classified as research misconduct because they falsely represent the validity of the results.
  

Self-Archiving Policy

Authors are permitted to self-archive their published work on institutional or personal websites, as well as in open-access repositories. When sharing their articles, they must appropriately cite the original publication and include the DOI number. Additionally, authors are encouraged to provide a link to the publisher’s official website, ensuring the authenticity and integrity of the scientific record. The version published on the publisher’s website is considered the definitive version of record.

Publication Fee Policy

KADEM Journal of Women’s Studies is funded by the Women and Democracy Association, KADEM. Authors are not required to pay any fees during the evaluation and publication process.

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the journal (except letters to the editor) undergo a double-blind peer review, meaning both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent experts in the relevant field to guarantee an impartial assessment.

• Letters to the Editor are not subjected to external peer review as they do not present original research or data requiring methodological verification, and are therefore evaluated solely through editorial assessment.

Initially, each submission is subject to a technical screening by the editorial team to verify compliance with the journal’s formatting and submission requirements. Manuscripts that fail to meet these standards are returned to authors with requests for technical corrections.

Manuscripts that meet the preliminary criteria are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief, who assesses their relevance to the journal’s scope and quality standards. Submissions deemed unsuitable may be declined at this stage.

For manuscripts that pass this assessment, the Editor-in-Chief delegates them to Section Editors, who are responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers. Section Editors may reject manuscripts, proceed with peer review, or request revisions before initiating further review.

Reviewers’ feedback is collected and assessed by the Section Editors, who then present their recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief. Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated, preferably involving the same reviewers, to inform the final decision.

The Editor-in-Chief has the ultimate authority in making decisions about all submissions.

If delays occur, authors will be notified and given the option to withdraw their manuscript. The editorial team is committed to ensuring the efficient and timely processing of all manuscript submissions, within the scope of available resources. If a manuscript is deemed suitable for publication, editors will make every reasonable effort to facilitate a prompt review and publication process. In cases where delays are anticipated, editors will communicate these to the authors and, where possible, agree on an appropriate timeline.

If a manuscript is not intended for further consideration, the editorial team will issue a decision as early as possible, allowing authors the opportunity to submit their work to another publication without unnecessary delay.

The journal aims to respond to authors’ inquiries regarding the status of their submissions in a timely and transparent manner in line with the latest ICMJE Recommendations for Journals.

Should authors request the withdrawal of a manuscript in good faith, and receive no formal confirmation within a reasonable period, they may consider the manuscript withdrawn. However, it is strongly recommended that authors inform the editorial office of their intent in writing and allow sufficient time for acknowledgment.

After the peer review concludes, authors receive anonymous feedback along with the editorial decision. Review reports are not publicly disclosed and are treated as confidential. If there is any suspicion of idea or data misappropriation by a reviewer, the Editorial Board will act according to COPE guidelines.

Authors may suggest reviewers when submitting their manuscript. However, the decision to invite suggested reviewers rests solely with the handling editor.

Reviewers must adhere to COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which aim to preserve the integrity and fairness of the process. In cases of suspected manipulation of peer review, the Editorial Board will follow COPE's relevant flowchart, both before and after publication.

Prospective reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation. This transparency helps maintain the review process's credibility.

All communication between editors and reviewers is confidential and must not be shared.

To avoid conflicts of interest, external editors will handle submissions from editorial board members. These editors are chosen based on their qualifications and peer-review experience. Confidentiality is strictly maintained for all reviewers and external editors. Disclosure of any conflict of interest is required to promote integrity in the review process.

If a manuscript undergoes an exceptional review process differing from the journal’s standard operation, this will be clearly indicated in the article in line with the principle of transparency.

Revisions

Authors whose manuscripts require "minor" or "major" revisions will receive a detailed decision letter from the Editor-in-Chief, including reviewer comments and a deadline for submitting the revised version.
When resubmitting, authors must provide a comprehensive response to each reviewer comment, detailing changes and referencing line numbers in the revised manuscript. The changes should be highlighted in the resubmitted manuscript.
Revised manuscripts must be submitted within the given timeframe.

Authorship Criteria

Authors must meet the criteria established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which include:

• Significant contributions to the study’s conception/design or data acquisition/analysis/interpretation.
• Participation in drafting or critically revising the manuscript.
• Approval of the final version.
• Accountability for all aspects of the work, especially its integrity and accuracy.

Authors should also be able to identify which co-authors contributed to specific parts of the work. Contributions can be detailed using the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) system upon submission. The contribution statement, once finalized, will be published with the article.

Each author must trust in the honesty and integrity of their co-authors and the research presented. Those who do not meet the authorship criteria should not be listed as authors but can be acknowledged appropriately.

If ghost, honorary, or gift authorship is suspected, the Editorial Board will suspend the submission and follow the relevant COPE flowchart to resolve the issue.

Authorship Changes
Any modifications to the author list (adding/removing authors or reordering names) must be accompanied by a signed letter from all authors explaining the changes.

These requests are reviewed by the Editorial Board following the relevant COPE guidelines to ensure transparency and fairness.

Declaration of Interest
Authors must declare any potential conflicts of interest during submission. Reviewers and editors are also expected to disclose any competing interests that could affect their judgment.

Cases involving potential conflicts will be handled in line with COPE’s guidance.

Funding Information
Authors must disclose all funding sources that supported their research. The funding statement should include grant numbers and clearly state the role of funders, if any. If funders were not involved in the study, that should be explicitly mentioned.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Manuscript Preparation

The journal adheres to COPE,  STM (The International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers) and WAME Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Scholarly Publications on the responsible use of AI in manuscript preparation.

Transparency: Any use of AI tools, such as for language editing, must be disclosed in the manuscript, including the tool’s name, version, and purpose. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy and originality of their work. Authors are expected to adhere to the principles of academic integrity in their use of AI.

Authorship: AI tools cannot be credited as authors. Human authors are accountable for all aspects of the manuscript, including data analysis and writing. Authors are expected to adhere to the principles of academic integrity in their use of AI.

Image Use: Due to unresolved legal issues, AI-generated images are generally not accepted unless they meet specific exceptions, such as being sourced from licensed agencies or discussed within an AI-focused article. Approved images must be labeled as “AI-generated” and their creation process described.

Post-Publication Correction Requests and Retractions

All post-publication corrections are reviewed by the Editorial Board. The decision to issue a correction depends on the error’s severity and impact. The board may consult with authors, reviewers, and other experts when making this decision.

Allegations of misconduct, including those from whistleblowers or raised on social media, will be handled per COPE’s flowcharts. An ombudsperson may be appointed if internal resolution is not possible.

The Editorial Board may also collaborate with other journals or institutions when investigating suspected ethical violations. Verified misconduct may result in retraction, and the retracted article will remain in the journal’s archive yet clearly marked as such.

Article Withdrawal (Pre-Publication)
To request withdrawal, all authors must submit a signed letter explaining the reason. If the editorial board does not respond within a reasonable period, authors may consider the manuscript withdrawn, but they must not submit it elsewhere until official withdrawal is confirmed.

Article Retraction (Post-Publication)

Retractions are issued in response to significant breaches of publishing ethics, including but not limited to plagiarism, falsified data, fraudulent authorship, or publication without the agreement of all co-authors. When an article is retracted, the following actions are taken:

A retraction notice, titled “Retraction: [Article Title],” is published in a future issue of the journal.

The original article's PDF is marked with a visible “Retracted” watermark.

The HTML version of the article is removed to ensure clarity in the correction process, while upholding scholarly integrity.

The journal will follow the relevant COPE guideline to ensure the retraction is made correctly.

Articles Removal (Legal or Safety-Related)

In exceptional circumstances, an article may need to be permanently deleted from the journal’s website. This may occur due to legal disputes, court mandates, defamatory content, or potential threats to public health or safety. In such cases, the article’s content will be removed and replaced with a formal legal statement explaining the reason for the removal. However, the article’s metadata—such as its title and list of authors—will remain accessible.

Article Replacement

If an article is found to contain errors that could impact public health or safety, the authors may submit a revised version for publication. In such instances, a retraction notice will still be issued and will include a link to the corrected version of the article. This ensures full transparency and maintains an accurate publication record.

Appeals and Complaints

Appeals and complaints should be directed to the editorial office. All cases are reviewed according to COPE guidelines, with the Editor-in-Chief holding final decision-making authority. In certain situations, an ombudsperson may be involved to ensure fairness.

Permissions
All content published in the journal is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license. This license permits users to share the content for non-commercial purposes, without modification, and with appropriate attribution to the author(s) and the journal.

For materials that cannot be distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND license, including previously published visuals, the responsibility lies with the author(s). In cases where commercial use permissions or licensing exceptions are required, users must contact the copyright holder, namely the author(s).

The journal does not accept advertisements in order to preserve the integrity of its content. Publication decisions are based solely on the quality and contribution of the research, without any commercial influence.

Disclaimer
Opinions expressed in published articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal's editors, editorial board, or publisher. Authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy and quality of their work. The journal provides a platform for scholarly communication but does not endorse individual opinions.