ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

Our journal is committed to upholding high ethical standards in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Our publication policy is founded on the principles of integrity, transparency, and merit, and requires authors, reviewers, and editors to fully comply with these universal principles throughout all stages of the process.

Core Principles

1. Scientific Integrity

This is the cornerstone of the journal. It is essential that research contains no fabrication, distortion, or improper citation, and that the accuracy of the data is upheld. The journal is committed to presenting knowledge to the academic community in its purest form, free from manipulation.

2. Transparency

Every stage of the publication process (such as submission, peer review, acceptance/rejection criteria, and publication fees) is open and traceable. Authors clearly know the status of their work and the criteria by which it is evaluated.

3. Impartiality & Objectivity

Editorial decisions are made completely independent of the authors’ origin, gender, religious beliefs, political views, or institutional affiliation. The sole criteria are the scientific quality, originality, and contribution to the literature of the work.

4. Confidentiality and Protection of Personal Data

By the nature of the double-blind peer review process, author and reviewer information, as well as the content of unpublished manuscripts, are treated as “confidential.” Furthermore, all personal data is safeguarded in compliance with the KVKK and GDPR.

5. Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity

No hierarchical or personal ties, other than academic merit, may influence the publication process. The journal maintains an equal distance from all researchers, ensuring that scientific competition takes place on a level playing field.

6. Accountability

Editors and the publisher are responsible for ensuring that all published content complies with ethical standards. If an error or ethical violation is identified, the journal considers it its duty to correct it, retract it, or provide the necessary clarification (in accordance with the principle of transparency).

7. Full Compliance with Ethical Principles (Ethical Compliance)

Uncompromising adherence is maintained not only during the publication phase but also throughout the research phase—including respect for participants’ rights, ethical committee approvals, and copyright laws.

8. Respect for Intellectual Property and Prohibition of Plagiarism

Respect for the work of others is the foundation of academic integrity. The journal adheres to a “zero-tolerance” policy toward all forms of plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) and uses technological screening tools to safeguard originality.

9. Prevention of Conflicts of Interest

All parties involved in the publication process (authors, reviewers, editors) are required to disclose any financial or personal relationships that could influence their decisions. This serves as a safeguard to preserve the impartiality of science. 

Kafdağı Journal adheres to the ethical principles of the following organizations:
a) Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) – Currently undergoing the application review process.
b) YÖK Guidelines on Scientific Research and Publication Ethics
c) Principles of Ethical Conduct for Higher Education Institutions
d) TÜBİTAK - Regulations of the Research and Publication Ethics Board
e) The regulations, recommendations, decisions, and procedures regarding ethical principles and publishing established by TR-Dizin and DergiPark are applied.

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors
1. Publication and Accountability: The editor-in-chief and section editors of Kafdağı Journal are responsible for determining which articles submitted for publication are consistent with the journal’s objectives and publication policies and should therefore be published. Editors are also responsible for determining which articles submitted to the journal comply with policies regarding defamatory content, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor is responsible for the journal’s content and publication quality and, in this context, has the right to consult with reviewers when making publication decisions.

2. Conflict of Interest: The chief and section editors of Kafdağı Journal must not permit anyone to use unpublished material, information, or data contained in manuscripts submitted to the journal by the author(s) in their own work without the author(s)’ explicit and written consent.

3. Impartiality: Articles submitted to Kafdağı Journal must always be evaluated in accordance with fully open, transparent, scientific, and objective criteria, without any bias. Manuscripts must be evaluated solely on the basis of their intellectual and scientific merit, without regard to the authors’ race, color, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political views.

4. Confidentiality: The editor-in-chief, associate editor, section editors, and editorial board must not disclose any information regarding submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the author(s) of the manuscript, the reviewers, and the publisher. Any information regarding an article submitted to the journal must not be disclosed by the editor to anyone other than the editorial board, the reviewers, and the journal owner.

5. Editors are obligated to carefully review complaints received from authors, reviewers, or readers and to respond in a clear and explanatory manner.

6. Neither the journal owner, the publisher, nor any other political or commercial entity shall influence the editors’ independent decision-making.

7. Other ethical principles that editors must adhere to are as follows:

• When communicating the reasons for rejection (e.g., irrelevance to the journal’s scope, inappropriate writing, content, or formatting, the presence of obvious errors, etc.), editors must use language that is non-offensive and non-derogatory.
• Editors are obligated to protect the authors’ research data. Confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts is strictly maintained. Principles of confidentiality must continue to apply even after rejection or publication.
• The review process must not be delayed due to negligence or intentionally. Blocking a manuscript or delaying its publication is unethical.
• Consideration is given to whether the study was conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines.
• The study is evaluated impartially (free from influences such as race, religion, nationality, gender, beliefs, and affiliations—whether institutional or personal), objectively, and independently.
• An article is not sent to reviewers who may have a conflict of interest related to the subject matter. Reviewers are selected impartially.
• If there is a similarity to the reviewer’s own work, the evaluation is delegated to an associate editor or subject area editors.
• Regarding the work: No information shall be exchanged with anyone other than members of the editorial board, reviewers, and the author(s).
• Information about the article may not be used in the work of the editor or any of the editor’s relatives.
• The selection of reviewers shall be based solely on scientific criteria; reviewers with expertise in the subject matter shall be selected.
• The editor must convey the reviewers’ opinions and recommendations to the author without disclosing their names.
• Authors must not be provided with incorrect information at any stage of the review process.
• No changes may be made to referee reports, nor may reports be altered to contradict the facts.
• The editor or section editors must not use the manuscript in their own research before it is published; nor should they allow others to do so.
• Individuals and institutions providing financial support to the journal must be clearly identified.
• Articles rejected by reviewers are returned, and nothing other than copies of the correspondence should be retained (reviewer reports are retained for at least 5 years).
• The journal corrects any errors or unethical practices identified in published articles through a retraction process.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
1. Expediting the Process: A reviewer who does not consider the assigned manuscript relevant to their field, feels inadequately qualified to review it, or is unable to submit a review on time must inform the editor of this situation and withdraw from the review process.

2. Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents; they must not be shown to anyone other than those authorized by the editor, and discussions about the manuscripts must be avoided. Privileged information and ideas obtained during the peer review process must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.

3. Impartiality: Reviewers’ critiques must be objective, fair, and in accordance with scientific ethics. No personal criticism should be directed at the author. Reviewers must evaluate works regardless of the authors’ origin, gender, sexual orientation, or political philosophy. Reviewers must also ensure a fair double-blind peer review process for the evaluation of manuscripts submitted to the journal. Reviewers should express their opinions with arguments that clearly support their views.

4. Citation of Sources: Reviewers must identify relevant published works not cited by the author. A reviewer must also bring to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the work under review and another previously published work of which the reviewer is aware.

5. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not evaluate manuscripts where a conflict of interest may arise due to competition, collaboration, or any other relationship or connection with the author. Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with parties such as authors, funders, editors, etc.

6. Support for the Editor: Reviewers should assist editors in the decision-making process and should also be able to help authors improve their manuscripts.

7. Other ethical principles that reviewers must adhere to:
• Reviewers must evaluate the article within the specified timeframe and must not delay the process.
• Reviewers must work diligently and complete their reports on time. If a reviewer is unable to evaluate the manuscript sent to them due to extenuating circumstances, they must return it immediately.
• The scientist serving as a reviewer is obligated to provide “fair” criticism.
• The work must be evaluated without bias (free from influences such as race, religion, nationality, gender, ideology, and institutional or personal affiliations), impartially, and independently.
• In cases where the reviewer is unable or unwilling to evaluate the work due to reasons such as a conflict of interest, lack of knowledge regarding the article’s subject matter, personal or professional ties, a conflict of interest or overlap of interests, or time constraints, they must return the work to the editor or the committee chair as soon as possible.
• The reviewer is required to maintain confidentiality and must not share information about the article.
• They must not exchange information regarding the manuscript with anyone other than the editor or the chair of the editorial board who sent it to them, nor with the authors.
• They must not forward a manuscript for which their opinion has been requested to another reviewer without consulting the editor and obtaining approval.
• The reviewer is responsible for ensuring that data related to the manuscript is protected and stored in accordance with confidentiality rules.
• The reviewer must consider whether the research was conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines.
• If there is another article that is very similar to and overlaps with the article under review, the editor must be informed of this situation.
• The publication of articles containing inconsistencies or ethical violations must be prevented.
• A review panel cannot form a cartel, and a reviewer may not disparage work that does not cite them.
• The study’s shortcomings should be pointed out in a “constructive” tone.
• The reviewer must express their opinions, evaluations, and recommendations regarding the work clearly and understandably in their report and, where necessary, support them with data from the literature.
• The reviewer must not use the work in their own research before it is published; nor should they allow others to do so.
• If the article pertains to the reviewer’s own research topic, and the authors and the reviewer are in competition regarding that topic, the article should be returned, and the information should not be used.
• The reviewer must clearly state in the report whether the article should be published or rejected. Providing justifications is an ethical responsibility. The reviewer must use appropriate language in the report.
• Criticisms of the article should be objective, balanced, and directed at the text rather than the author.
• Reviewers must act in a principled and truthful manner when rejecting a manuscript.
• Reviewers must evaluate the quality of the manuscript, its experimental and theoretical components, its interpretation, and its presentation in accordance with scientific principles. They must respect the author’s intellectual independence.
• Reviewers should be mindful of situations where the manuscript under review is closely related to their own research area or to a work they have published, as this could create a conflict of interest. If such a situation arises, they should immediately return the manuscript without reviewing it and inform the editor of the potential conflict or bias.
• A reviewer should not accept a manuscript for review if it was written by someone with whom they have a personal or professional relationship, as this could compromise the objectivity of the review.

Authors’ Ethical Responsibilities
1. Reporting Standards: A manuscript submitted to Kafdağı Journal must be original, and authors must certify that the text consists of original work that has not been previously published in any journal. The data used in the manuscript must be presented with meticulous care. A manuscript must contain a sufficient level of detail and reference information. Fraudulent or deliberate misrepresentations are unacceptable, as they may lead to unethical situations. Additionally, authors must strictly adhere to the journal’s style guidelines. In this context, they must implement any changes requested by the reviewer, section editor, or editor-in-chief in a timely and meticulous manner. Any information, documents, or revisions to the article requested by the journal editorial board must be completed and submitted via the system within 15 days at the latest, and the editor must be notified. Authors should be aware that failure to comply with these requests within the specified timeframe will result in the article being considered withdrawn.

2. TR Dizin has added several provisions regarding ethical guidelines to its 2020 criteria. Submitted articles must be formatted in accordance with these provisions:
• “Ethics Committee Approval” is required for all types of research conducted using qualitative or quantitative approaches that involve collecting data from participants through surveys, interviews, focus groups, observations, experiments, or other interview techniques.
• Articles must specify whether ethics committee approval and/or legal/special permission is required. If such approvals are required, the institution from which the approval was obtained, the date, and the decision or reference number must be clearly stated.
• “Ethics Committee Approval” is required for research involving the use of humans and animals (including materials/data) for experimental or other scientific purposes.
• If the study involves the use of human or animal subjects, it must be stated that the study was conducted in accordance with international declarations, guidelines, etc.
• “Ethics Committee Approval” is required for clinical trials involving humans and for research involving animals.
• In accordance with the Personal Data Protection Law, “Ethics Committee Approval” is required for retrospective studies.
• Permission must be obtained from the owners for the use of scales, questionnaires, or photographs belonging to others, and this must be stated in the article.
• In case reports, it must be stated that an “Informed Consent Form” was obtained.
• It must be stated that copyright regulations have been complied with regarding the use of literary and artistic works.
• Data Access and Retention: Authors may be asked to provide relevant raw data related to their work that may be needed during the review process. Therefore, the author(s) must be prepared to provide access to this data and must retain it for a reasonable period following the publication of their work.

3. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must write entirely original manuscripts and, if they use the work and/or words of others, must cite them appropriately. By submitting an article to Kafdağı Journal, authors guarantee that their articles are original and comply with ethical standards, that all sources used have been fully cited, and that they do not bear any resemblance to other articles that have been published or are in the process of being published. In this context, authors must run their work through a plagiarism detection software (such as iThenticate, Turnitin, intihal.net, etc.) and upload a document via the Kafdağı Journal’s DergiPark system certifying that the similarity rate, including the reference list, does not exceed 20% (our journal uses the plagiarism screening service provided by DergiPark during the article submission process).

4. Multiple Publications: An author should generally not publish the same text describing essentially the same research in more than one article. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

5. Citation of Sources: Sources taken from the works of others must always be properly cited. Authors are required to cite previous publications that influence the substance of the work they are reporting.

6. Authorship: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a meaningful contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported work. All contributors who have made significant contributions should be listed following the first author. If individuals have been involved in the research project in various capacities, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. Authorship must also include one author responsible for correspondence with the journal’s editor. The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors are included in the manuscript.

7. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: All authors are required to disclose any financial sources or conflicts of interest that could influence the results or interpretations of their work.

PUBLICATION POLICY

With the aim of maintaining the highest standards of accuracy and reliability in scientific knowledge, our journal adopts the principles of originality, methodological validity, and contribution to science as its core publication policy in all review processes; it demonstrates an unwavering commitment to international standards of publication ethics. In this context, the publication policy implemented by our journal includes the following sections: Manuscript Submission Policy, Initial Screening Policy, Peer Review Process Policy, Acceptance Policy, Order of Publication Policy, Early View Policy, Fee Policy, Copyright and Publication License Policy, Ethics Committee Approval Policy, Correction and Retraction Policy, Archiving Policy, Indexing Policy, Artificial Intelligence Policy, Conflict of Interest Policy, Appeal and Complaint Policy, Plagiarism and Similarity Policy, Authorship and Contribution Policies, and Evaluation of Allegations of Research Misconduct, Ethical Violations, etc. See the Evaluation Process.

Manuscript Submission Policy
• Manuscript submissions are accepted year-round.
• Research, review, and book review articles are accepted.
• The topic and field of the manuscript must be consistent with the journal’s scope.
• Acceptance of articles is based on scientific rigor, adherence to ethical principles, and compliance with the journal’s requirements (files, technical matters, style guidelines, etc.).
• Any of the required documents that require a signature must be signed either with an electronic signature or a handwritten signature.
• An author must wait one year before resubmitting an article (in the case of multi-authored articles, the editor will decide on a case-by-case basis. The purpose is to uphold the principle of equal opportunity. In the event of an immediate rejection, an explanation will be provided).

Preliminary Review Policy
Preliminary review is the stage at which a manuscript is evaluated before entering the peer-review process. During the preliminary review stage, editors pay particular attention to the following points:
• Has the manuscript been prepared in accordance with the scientific method? (In terms of language, style, methodology, logic, etc.)
• Does the manuscript have scientific merit? Does it serve the principle of problem-solving or scientific advancement?
• Does it comply with ethical guidelines?
• Is the similarity rate acceptable? Are sources properly cited in quotations? Is there any plagiarism?
• Is the article original?
• Has the article submission form been filled out according to the template?
• Have the required documents been completed fully and accurately?

If the article has correctable deficiencies or errors, it is returned to the author for correction and completion. Articles are rejected if they contain uncorrectable errors, such as ethical non-compliance, a similarity rate that compromises the article’s originality, similarity resulting from plagiarism, lack of scientific rigor, failure to obtain ethics committee approval, or a topic unrelated to the journal’s scope. 

Peer Review Process Policy
• A double-blind peer review model is used.
• Each article is sent to at least two reviewers.
• Every effort is made to ensure that the authors and the reviewers assigned to the article are not from the same institution.
• Article submissions do not contain any information identifying the author; if such information is present, it is anonymized. 
• Reviews received from reviewers are examined by the editor; any information identifying the reviewer is anonymized before the review is forwarded.
• Reviewers are given 15 days to evaluate a manuscript. If a valid reason is provided, the reviewer’s deadline may be extended by 10 days. If the review is not completed by the deadline, the assignment is canceled and the manuscript is sent to another reviewer.
• A reviewer’s evaluation is deemed invalid—and the manuscript is sent to another reviewer—for reasons such as the imposition of unnecessary references, careless evaluation, or evaluation completed within an unreasonably short timeframe. The journal ensures that at least two reviewer evaluations, conducted in accordance with scientific, technical, and ethical standards, are available.
• Reviewers are expected to provide specific evaluations and constructive feedback (review forms are designed accordingly). 
• After major revisions, manuscripts are resubmitted to the reviewer who requested the major revisions.
• Peer review decisions are handled as follows: 
      1- If the manuscript receives a rejection from both reviewers, it is rejected.
      2- In cases of “major rejection” or “major-major,” the manuscript is either rejected or sent to a third reviewer based on the editor’s assessment. If a rejection is received after the third review, the manuscript is rejected. If a “major” recommendation is received, the editor may reject the manuscript or request major revisions.
      3- Minor-minor; in cases of “minor-accept,” minor revisions are required.
      4- In cases of “accept-accept,” the editor may approve the manuscript or, if deemed necessary, request minor revisions.
• Explanatory information is provided when decisions are communicated to the author.
• Authors have the right to appeal decisions. In the event of an appeal, the editorial board reviews the article’s processing and responds to the author.

Acceptance Policy
For articles to be accepted for publication, the peer review process must be complete and the article must have been accepted by the editor. Prior to acceptance: 1- The article review process must have been conducted without error. If an error is detected, the process is repeated to correct the omission or error. 2- The article is reviewed again for ethical, scientific, and technical matters. If there are any deficiencies, they are corrected. Otherwise, the article is accepted for publication.

Publication Order Policy
The issue in which articles will appear is determined following review by the editor/editorial board. 
Factors influencing assignment to an issue:
1- The article review process must have been conducted without error. (If an error is detected, the “acceptance for publication” is revoked, and the process is restarted to address the deficiency or error.)
2- Timeliness of the topic
3- High scientific value and citation potential
4- Priority based on the date of acceptance, following the first three criteria

Note: An author may have one article published per issue (In the case of multi-author articles, the editor makes the decision. The aim is to ensure equal opportunity.). 

Early View Policy 
With the approval of the editorial board, articles may be published as early view.

Fee Policy
All publication activities in our journal are free of charge.

Copyright and Publication License Policy
The copyright of the articles belongs to the author, and our journal adheres to an open access publication policy. Articles are published under the CC-BY 04 license.

Ethics Committee Approval Policy
An Ethics Committee Approval certificate is required for studies involving human and animal subjects. Authors are required to provide a written commitment that all articles have been prepared in accordance with ethical principles. The TR-Dizin rules serve as the basis for determining which articles require ethics committee approval. Click here for more information.

Correction and Retraction Policy
Retraction and correction procedures are carried out through the DergiPark system, and links are provided to both versions of the relevant article.
The retraction of a published article may occur for two reasons: (I) the detection of an ethical violation or a breach of scientific integrity in the article, or (II) at the author’s own request. In such cases, if the accuracy and validity of the retraction request are confirmed following an investigation by the editor and/or the editorial board, a retraction notice is created via the DergiPark platform. Links and explanations regarding the “retraction notice” are added to the old version of the article, and links to the retraction notice are added to the new version. Click here for a diagram illustrating the retraction process.

Archiving Policy
Articles published in this journal are digitally archived in LOCKSS through the DergiPark platform. An institutional offline archive is also maintained.

Indexing Policy
Our journal has been registered with various directories and indexes primarily to ensure that authors’ scientific work receives the recognition it deserves, to increase their national and international visibility, and to share their efforts with the scientific community through open access. Submissions are made regularly. 
Click here for detailed information about the directories and indexes we are indexed in.

Artificial Intelligence Policy
Kafdağı Journal commits to not using artificial intelligence in its article review processes. We adhere to COPE ethical standards and relevant guidelines published in our country regarding artificial intelligence and its various forms. We consider it natural to use artificial intelligence and its various forms not in processes that constitute an author’s contribution, but rather in processes where it serves as a research tool (e.g., grammar checking, identifying stylistic errors, etc.). 

Ethical Use: Artificial intelligence technologies may only be used as auxiliary tools in technical areas such as grammar and stylistic consistency. The author bears full responsibility for any data derived from artificial intelligence in the production or analysis of academic content.

Transparency: Authors are required to disclose at which stages and how AI was used in their articles. This disclosure must be clearly stated in the ethics statement section of the article.

Accuracy: The accuracy of all data obtained through the use of AI must be verified against sources. The author is responsible for any incorrect or incomplete information.

Impartiality: The use of AI technologies in the production process must be impartial. To prevent potential conflicts of interest, authors must ensure transparency and disclose such situations in their ethical statements.

Privacy and Security: The privacy and security of personal data are a priority in the use of artificial intelligence. Privacy principles must be strictly adhered to during data collection, storage, and processing.

Citation: The use of artificial intelligence should not be listed in the references or footnotes. However, this use must be disclosed in the ethics statement section.

Authors: Authors bear all ethical and scientific responsibilities arising from the use of artificial intelligence technologies. Authors are required to declare that they did not generate their text using AI tools. In cases where AI is used, they must commit to ethical compliance.

Reviewers and Editors: The journal’s editorial board verifies whether the use of artificial intelligence complies with the specified standards. If unethical use is detected, the article is rejected by decision of the editorial board.

Updates and Adaptations: These policies may be updated in line with advancements in artificial intelligence technologies.
 

Conflict of Interest Policy
Definition of conflict of interest: a situation in which the ethical purpose driving a scientific activity is influenced by a different interest (financial, moral, personal, etc.), causing the activity to lose its objectivity at any stage, appear to lose it, or have the potential to do so (ICMJE). It can be said that conflicts of interest have two aspects in the field of publishing: (I) Conflict of interest in the article: This covers issues such as financial support received by authors while preparing the article, institutional relationships, and mentor-student relationships; (II) Conflict of interest in the journal: This covers financial and personal conflicts of interest that may arise during the review process, such as those involving reviewer-editor, author-reviewer, or reviewer-institution relationships.

In the initial stage, our journal requires authors to complete a “conflict of interest statement” serving as a declaration regarding conflicts of interest. Additionally, our editors review this statement to verify whether it accurately reflects the facts.

We carefully follow the recommendations for improvement from platforms such as COPE, ICMJE, TR-Dizin, and DergiPark regarding these and similar issues.

For matters related to conflicts of interest, you may contact our journal via the email addresses listed on the contact page or through the “feedback” button on DergiPark.

Objections and Complaints Policy
Our journal conducts its publishing activities using the DergiPark platform. All transactions carried out in this context are recorded. Complaints and objections regarding the editorial board or the peer review process may be submitted via the email addresses listed on the contact page or through DergiPark’s “feedback” button. The process for handling complaints and appeals is managed in accordance with COPE guidelines and practices established in precedent cases. The key element in any complaint is the submission of evidence supporting the complaint or appeal submitted to us. Complaints supported by evidence are reviewed by our editorial board, and the necessary actions are taken. Click here for more detailed information.

Plagiarism and Similarity Policy
An electronic plagiarism scan is conducted on the DergiPark article submission page, and our journal is integrated into this system. The plagiarism rate for all submitted manuscripts, excluding the reference list, must fall within the range of 0–20%. The reports generated are reviewed by the editors. The plagiarism/similarity report provides only a percentage. This does not mean that all articles meeting the percentage requirement are free of ethical violations, nor does it mean that all articles failing to meet the percentage requirement constitute an ethical violation. Ethical violations in this context include: quoting without using the required scientific citation methods; or, despite using the required scientific methods, a significant portion of the article failing to present new data or analysis through citations. To prevent such situations, editors review the plagiarism/similarity reports and make decisions regarding the articles.

Authorship and Contribution Policies
Regarding author order, our journal bases its decisions on authors’ declarations of their contribution levels. Author order should be determined based on the principle of prioritizing those who have contributed the most. In this regard, the author order chart provided by our national citation system, ISNAD, serves as a useful guide for authors:
Author Contributions (ISNAD)

As a result of the process carried out according to this scale, a ranking is established from those who contributed the most to those who contributed the least.

Unjust authorship: Including individuals who made no active contribution among the authors or omitting those who did; altering the author order in an unjustified and inappropriate manner; removing the names of those who made active contributions from subsequent editions of the work; or using one’s influence to have one’s name included among the authors despite having made no active contribution (YÖK)

Corresponding author: This term refers to the person who submits the article for publication and handles correspondence (as defined in the “Procedures and Principles” of the Directorate of Academic Journals, Directorate General of Science and Society, TÜBİTAK). Accordingly, if an article or study has a single author, that person is naturally the corresponding author. However, in studies or articles with multiple authors, the corresponding author is one of the individuals who has earned the right to authorship as specified above and, in addition, is the person who handles correspondence on behalf of the other authors throughout the process from submission to publication. Throughout the various stages—such as correspondence via the DergiPark system, referee recommendations, revisions, and final proofreading—the corresponding author must coordinate with the other authors to ensure a unified approach at every stage.

Evaluation of Allegations of Research Misconduct, Ethical Violations, etc.
Our journal conducts its publishing activities using the DergiPark platform. All transactions carried out in this context are logged. Allegations of research misconduct are submitted via the email addresses listed on the contact page and through DergiPark’s “feedback” button. The process for handling such cases is managed in accordance with COPE guidelines and practices outlined in precedent cases. The key element in any complaint is the submission of evidence supporting the allegations of misconduct brought to our attention. Such allegations, when supported by evidence, are reviewed by our editorial board, and appropriate action is taken. Click here for more detailed information.