Publication Ethics

Manuscripts submitted to the Kastamonu Education Journal must, first and foremost, comply with research and publication ethics. Kastamonu Education Journal conducts all publication and editorial processes in accordance with national and international ethical principles, as well as standards of transparency and responsible publishing. Kastamonu Education Journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines regarding article acceptance, ethical responsibilities of authors, duties and ethical responsibilities of editors, peer review, allegations of misconduct, conflicts of interest, plagiarism, authorship disputes, and post-publication procedures. This policy applies to all of the following situations:

·        All manuscripts submitted to the journal by authors,

·        Editor evaluation processes,

·        Accepted manuscripts,

·        Interactions between authors, editors, and reviewers.

The journal adopts the implementation of the "Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing" established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for all submissions. When encountering an issue not explicitly addressed herein, the journal accepts COPE flowcharts and the "Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing" as guiding principles in the decision-making process.

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are strongly advised to carefully read the journal’s aims and scope, as well as the guidelines for authors section, before submitting a manuscript. While there are various definitions of authorship, COPE defines authorship as referring to "individuals or groups who have conceived an idea or developed the publication disseminating this intellectual or creative work." COPE establishes making a significant contribution to the research and being responsible for the work undertaken as the minimum requirements for authorship. Based on this, a person in the role of an author contributes to the completion of the research by participating in the process from determining the research idea to developing the study (data collection, analysis, interpretation) and subsequently reviewing and reporting the results. Authors carrying out these processes are expected to comply with academic and ethical standards throughout the entire research and publication process. Consequently, the authors listed in the article must have contributed to the manuscript and approved the final submitted version. The accuracy of the views advocated and the sources cited in the article is the responsibility of the author or authors. The authors of the article must clarify the author order during the submission process; it should be noted that requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after the review process has begun will only be considered in exceptional and justified circumstances. No changes are made after the article has been accepted for publication.

Research Reporting Standards

Authors must declare at the time of initial submission that their work is original, has not been previously published, and is not currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. It must also be affirmed that the study will not be submitted to another journal or publication for evaluation while the review process is ongoing. Studies presented as conference papers may only be considered if they have been significantly revised and expanded (at least 80% of the text must be original and previously unpublished content) in cases where they were published in proceedings books; such instances must be clearly disclosed on the Title Page during the initial submission. The Title Page must include the accurate and full names of all authors, their institutional affiliations, email addresses, ORCID IDs, and the full contact information of the corresponding author (mailing address, current institution, etc.). It is the responsibility of all authors, particularly the corresponding author, to perform the final checks of this information before publication. Authors must act on the principles of accuracy, clarity, and transparency in the work they submit to the journal, providing detailed methodological information and presenting data, analyses, and interpretations in a manner that reflects actual findings free from manipulation.

Originality and Plagiarism

Submitted manuscripts must be original, and authors are strongly advised to avoid any form of plagiarism or ethical violations (citation manipulation, self-plagiarism, slicing, data fabrication, data falsification, etc.). The journal will follow the appropriate COPE flowcharts to ensure a consistent investigation of any allegations or suspicions regarding plagiarism, citation manipulation, or data fabrication. Furthermore, if significant or unexplained similarity is detected in the manuscript, it may be rejected at any stage of the evaluation process.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors must declare any potential conflicts of interest that could influence the research or the interpretation of the findings at the time of submission. If no conflict of interest exists, this must be explicitly stated. For manuscripts authored by journal editors or members of the editorial and advisory boards, the evaluation process will be managed by editors from institutions with no affiliation to the author. Furthermore, the exclusion of relevant board members will be carefully monitored to ensure that no bias occurs during the peer review process.

Financial Disclosure

Author(s) are required to disclose any financial support or all sources of funding received for their research. This information must be included in the funding statement on the Title Page submitted during the initial submission (including the names of funding organizations, grant numbers, and a description of each funder's role in the research, etc.). The author(s) are responsible for the accuracy of the names of the funding organizations and related information.

Ethical Approval

Author(s) are required to confirm that ethical and legal approval was obtained before the commencement of the study and to specify the name of the granting institution. Ethical committee approval is requested for research involving human or animal participants, personal data, or procedures subject to ethical oversight. For studies approved by a recognized ethics committee, the name of the committee, the approval date, and the approval number must be included on the Title Page submitted during the initial submission and within the manuscript in an anonymized format.

Maintaining the Double-Blind Review Process

The journal conducts the evaluation of manuscripts through a double-blind peer review process. In this context, to ensure an objective evaluation of the work, reviewers cannot see the information of the authors, and authors cannot see the information of the reviewers. Therefore, authors are obliged to ensure that the manuscript is completely anonymized and are responsible for removing identifying information such as names, affiliations, acknowledgments, institution-specific identifiers, and metadata that could reveal the authors. A breach of anonymity may result in the return or rejection of the submission.

Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

The role of artificial intelligence in manuscripts may be accepted at a limited level (such as language enhancement or basic structuring). Authors must disclose the use of AI tools on the title page; if used, the specific tool(s) and the scope of their use must be explained, and the instructions (prompts) provided to the AI tool(s) must be documented by the authors. Undisclosed or inappropriate use of artificial intelligence may lead to rejection or post-publication actions.

Error Correction

Authors must immediately inform the journal editor if they detect any errors in their published work and collaborate with the Editor throughout the process to facilitate the evaluation/procedure, including cooperation on corrections or retractions in accordance with COPE guidelines. In the case of retractions, an "Article Withdrawal Form" must be filled out and sent to the journal's email address. Following a review of the request by the boards, authors will be informed within 15 days. In such instances, the Editorial Office will conduct a preliminary assessment and may consult independent experts, reviewers, or relevant institutional bodies as needed; a decision will be made accordingly based on recognized best practices, including COPE recommendations.

 Evaluation Process

Manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a double-blind peer review process. To ensure an objective evaluation of the studies, they are reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers who are experts in their fields. During the evaluation processes, the editor and field editors act with an awareness of ethical duties and responsibilities based on COPE. Some key points are also specified below.

 Ethical Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for ensuring that the evaluation process is conducted fairly, transparently, and in adherence to ethical principles. In this context, editors are responsible for fair evaluation (making editorial decisions solely based on the scientific merit, originality, methodological structure, clarity of expression, and the aims and scope of the journal, without discriminating based on the authors' identity, institutional affiliation, nationality, or personal characteristics), oversight of peer review (preserving the integrity of the double-blind review process, selecting qualified and independent reviewers with appropriate expertise, and conducting an efficient, fair, and timely evaluation process), declaring conflicts of interest (recusing themselves from duty when necessary, and withdrawing from the evaluation process if there is a conflict of interest with any of the authors or institutions related to the manuscripts), and maintaining the confidentiality of submitted content. Editors must act in accordance with citation ethics and must not request citations for the purpose of increasing citation counts. Furthermore, editors must not use any part of the information, text, data, or studies contained in unpublished manuscripts submitted to the journal in their own research. Editors are obligated to carefully examine complaints from authors, reviewers, or readers and respond in an informative and explanatory manner. Evidence-based appeals from authors regarding editorial decisions are handled transparently and respectfully. Editors are responsible for responding to ethical concerns (plagiarism allegations, unethical research, data manipulation, etc.). In such cases, the matter is investigated in accordance with COPE procedures.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must adhere to the principles of objectivity (impartiality regarding nationality, gender, etc.), confidentiality (destruction of evaluated studies and using only the final versions after a publication decision is made), and competence (accepting only studies related to their fields of expertise) during the evaluation of publications. Reviewers should provide constructive and polite feedback, complete their reviews within reasonable timeframes, and report any issues identified regarding the manuscript (plagiarism, errors in method, methodological concerns, conflicts of interest, etc.) to the editors. Reviewers must continue to maintain the double-blind evaluation system, should not attempt to identify the author(s), and must inform the editor if the identity of the author(s) is revealed. Reviewers cannot communicate directly with the authors; evaluation and reviewer comments on the text are conveyed to the author(s) through the journal management system and the editor. Reviewers must prioritize the protection of confidential content and must not upload the manuscripts they evaluate into artificial intelligence systems.

Dealing with Research Misconduct

In the event of unethical situations regarding manuscripts (such as plagiarism, data falsification, fabricated data, authorship, and citation manipulation, etc.), decisions are made by acting in accordance with the COPE flowcharts.

Editorial and Publication Workflow

1. Initial Review: Manuscripts are evaluated in terms of their compliance with the journal's aims and scope, adherence to ethical guidelines, writing quality, similarity index, and the complete upload of required documents.
2. Assignment of Assistant Editor/Field Editor: The assistant editor/field editor initiates the manuscript evaluation process and shares with the editor if any situation is identified that prevents the manuscript from being sent to reviewers.
3. Peer Review: The field editor ensures that manuscripts decided for evaluation are reviewed by assigning at least two reviewers (independent experts). If there are significant differences between reviewer decisions (e.g., one rejection and one acceptance), the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer. The final decision is made based on the feedback from the reviewers. For manuscripts authored by journal editors or members of the editorial and advisory boards, the evaluation process will be managed by editors from institutions with no affiliation to the author, and the exclusion of relevant board members will be carefully monitored to ensure no bias occurs during the peer review process.
4. Revisions: Authors specify their detailed responses on the "Manuscript Revision Form" according to the reviewers' suggestions. They upload the revised manuscript to the system along with this form. Revised manuscripts are sent back to reviewers willing to conduct a re-evaluation for further review. Reviewers or editors may request multiple corrections from the author. Depending on the status of the corrections, second or subsequent evaluation rounds may be initiated.
5. Acceptance, Final Check, and Layout: The decision-making process regarding whether manuscripts accepted as a result of field editor and reviewer evaluations will be published is initiated by the editor-in-chief. The final decision (acceptance, rejection, revision) is marked in the journal system. After passing the English language check, the manuscript undergoes a process ranging from formatting according to the journal template, page layout control, compliance with APA format in citations, and final editorial reading to the final corrections made by the author. Following acceptance, linguistic or technical editorial corrections may be requested if necessary. Finally, "approval for publication" is obtained from the author(s) after their final checks, and the manuscript is queued to be published in the first appropriate issue.
6. Early Online Publication: Accepted manuscripts may be published online in their final and corrected versions prior to the official publication date of the relevant issue.