1. Core Values
Kronotop Journal of Communication is an international, peer-reviewed scholarly journal that aims to support the production of original academic knowledge in the field of media and communication, foster scholarly debate, and uphold high ethical standards in academic publishing.
The journal is committed to the principles of transparency, impartiality, accountability, academic integrity, and scientific quality across all stages of the research, evaluation, editorial decision-making, and publication processes.
The journal considers for publication manuscripts that demonstrate scientific rigor, offer original contributions to the field, and are prepared in accordance with established research and publication ethics.
In addition to ensuring the quality of published content, the journal’s policy also prioritizes maintaining a relationship of scholarly trust among authors, editors, reviewers, the editorial board, and the publisher.
2. Legal Basis and Ethical Framework
Kronotop Journal of Communication adheres to both national and international standards in research and publication ethics. In this regard, the journal adopts widely recognized ethical principles and guidelines in scholarly publishing, particularly those established by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). The journal also operates within an ethical framework that complies with relevant national legislation, including the Press Law, the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works, the Directive on Scientific Research and Publication Ethics of Higher Education Institutions, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
In all editorial and publishing processes, COPE flowcharts, editor guidelines, and internationally recognized best practices for addressing ethical concerns are taken as guiding references. The journal adopts an approach to publishing in which ethical considerations are not limited to the identification of violations, but also encompass preventive, explanatory, and guiding practices. Accordingly, ethical principles are regarded as a shared responsibility among all stakeholders involved in the publication process.
3. Principles of Research and Publication Ethics
Kronotop Journal of Communication upholds scientific integrity and research ethics at every stage of the scholarly process, including the planning, execution, reporting, evaluation, and publication of research. The purpose of the study, its methodology, data collection procedures, evaluation processes, and findings must be presented accurately, comprehensively, and without misrepresentation. The fabrication of data, selective use of data, distortion of findings, or misrepresentation of the scope of the research are considered clear violations of ethical standards. The journal does not view research ethics as limited solely to the content of the manuscript. It also regards issues such as the protection of participant rights, the safeguarding of personal data, required permissions and ethical approvals, informed consent procedures, authorship practices, proper citation and use of sources, and financial transparency as integral components of research ethics.
3.1. Ethics Committee Approval
For studies that require ethics committee approval, obtaining authorization from the relevant committee is mandatory. Information regarding the ethics committee must be clearly stated in the appropriate sections of the manuscript, including the name of the committee, the date of approval, and the decision or reference number. For such studies, the ethics committee report must also be uploaded to the system along with the manuscript file. In research involving human participants, informed consent must be obtained when data collection methods such as surveys, interviews, focus groups, observations, experiments, or similar techniques are employed. Authors are responsible for ensuring the protection of participants’ personal data, maintaining confidentiality, and conducting the research process in accordance with the principle of voluntary participation. The journal’s editors may request, when deemed necessary, supporting documentation from authors, including ethics committee approvals, consent forms, institutional permissions, or other relevant materials. If a study is conducted within or based on a specific institution, organization, field site, archive, or proprietary dataset, the necessary institutional permissions must be obtained. Failure to secure such permissions may constitute grounds for rejection on the basis of ethical non-compliance.
Types of Research Requiring Ethics Committee Approval
Qualitative and/or quantitative studies involving the collection of primary data from participants through methods such as surveys, interviews, focus group discussions, observations, experiments, or similar techniques.
Studies involving the use of humans or animals for experimental or other scientific purposes, including those utilizing biological materials and datasets.
Clinical research and experimental intervention studies conducted with human participants.
Research and experimental studies involving laboratory animals or other living organisms.
Studies involving the retrospective use of data within the scope of the Personal Data Protection Law (KVKK).
Legal Basis
In accordance with the regulations enacted by ULAKBİM TR Dizin as of 2020, obtaining ethics committee approval has become a prerequisite for all research articles to be published in the journal from that date onward. For further details, please refer to the TR Dizin Ethical Principles Flowchart.
3.2. Violations of Research and Publication Ethics
The following actions are considered ethical violations:
Plagiarism: The use of others’ ideas, interpretations, findings, data, expressions, visuals, or works without proper attribution.
Self-plagiarism (text recycling): The reuse of text or content from an author’s previously published work without appropriate citation or disclosure.
Fabrication: The creation of data, documents, or findings that do not exist.
Falsification: The deliberate manipulation, omission, selective presentation, or misleading interpretation of research data, methods, or results.
Duplicate publication: The submission or publication of the same or substantially similar work in more than one journal.
Salami slicing: The fragmentation of a single study into multiple publications in a way that compromises its scientific integrity.
Unjustified authorship: The inclusion of individuals as authors who have not made a significant scholarly contribution, or the exclusion of those who have.
Misleading statements: Providing incomplete or inaccurate information regarding ethics approval, funding, support, authorship contributions, data sources, or conflicts of interest.
Copyright infringement: The unauthorized or improper use of materials that require permission.
In cases involving submissions to the journal or works previously published in the journal—where concerns such as duplicate publication, salami slicing, plagiarism, data fabrication, conflicts of interest, or unjustified authorship arise, including requests for changes in authorship—the editorial team acts in accordance with the standards and guidelines established by COPE. The journal also follows COPE’s relevant guidelines and flowcharts in managing authorship change requests and other ethical concerns.
3.3. Reporting Ethical Concerns
Complaints and appeals regarding the journal’s published content, editorial procedures and policies, as well as the responsibilities of members serving on the journal’s boards, or any concerns related to unethical practices or content, should be submitted via email to kronotop@mku.edu.tr. All submissions are handled in accordance with the principle of confidentiality and are carefully reviewed by the editorial board. Necessary actions are initiated promptly following the evaluation process. All complaints and appeals submitted to the journal are examined thoroughly and assessed in line with the principles established by COPE.
3.4. Allegations of Misconduct
The journal adopts as a fundamental principle the full implementation of ethical standards throughout all stages of scholarly publishing. Allegations of misconduct arising at any stage—whether prior to or following publication—and submitted by authors or third parties are carefully evaluated in accordance with established procedures. All complaints, including whistleblower reports, are handled through an impartial and comprehensive investigation process, with due consideration given to the rights of all parties involved. Throughout this process, the journal adheres to the standards and guidelines issued by COPE.
4. Review Processes and Other Policies
Kronotop Journal of Communication is an open-access, free-of-charge, peer-reviewed scholarly journal published by the Faculty of Communication at Hatay Mustafa Kemal University. The journal is published twice a year, in January and July. Manuscripts are accepted only through the DergiPark system, and submissions sent through any other channel are not considered for evaluation.
A double-blind peer review system is applied in the evaluation processes carried out by the journal. Within this framework, the identities of authors and reviewers are kept mutually confidential. Submissions are first subjected to an editorial pre-evaluation. At this stage, manuscripts are examined in terms of their alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, scientific contribution, originality, adequacy of academic writing, compliance with ethical principles, and formal requirements. Submissions deemed not to meet the required criteria may be returned to the authors without being sent for peer review.
The journal relies solely on scholarly criteria in its publication processes. Authors’ institutional affiliations, academic titles, gender, age, beliefs, ethnic background, nationality, political views, or similar personal characteristics do not influence the evaluation process.
4.1. Review Process and Timeline
Kronotop Journal of Communication adopts a three-stage evaluation model for submitted manuscripts, consisting of an initial editorial screening conducted by the editor and editorial board, a double-blind external peer review process, and a final editorial review followed by preparation for publication. Within this framework:
Internal Review Process
Each submission to the journal first undergoes a technical preliminary check for compliance with the journal’s publication policies and author guidelines. At this stage, similarity screening and plagiarism detection are also conducted. As of the June 2024 issue, Kronotop Journal of Communication requires the use of the similarity screening service provided through the collaboration between DergiPark and Intihal.net for all submissions. The preliminary check is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief and is completed within a maximum of five days. Manuscripts that do not meet the preliminary criteria may be rejected or returned to the authors. Submissions that meet these criteria are assigned by the Editor-in-Chief to a relevant section editor. The section editor determines, within fifteen days of assignment, whether the manuscript will proceed to the peer review process . When deemed necessary, the section editor may directly reject or return the manuscript, or provide the author with editorial revision suggestions.
External Review Process
Manuscripts that successfully pass the editorial pre-evaluation are sent to two expert reviewers within the framework of a double-blind peer review system. In the selection of reviewers, it is essential that evaluators are affiliated with institutions different from those of the authors and have attained at least a doctoral-level academic qualification in the relevant field. Reviewers are expected to respond to the review invitation within seven days, and the review process is limited to fifteen days. The editor and/or section editors may extend these timeframes or appoint new reviewers when required by the process. Based on their evaluation, reviewers may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. If both reviewers recommend acceptance, the manuscript is accepted for publication; otherwise, it is rejected. In cases of disagreement between reviewers, a third reviewer is consulted, and the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief and/or the section editor in light of this additional evaluation.
Manuscripts requiring revision based on reviewer reports are returned to the authors. Authors are expected to complete the required revisions within fourteen days. Submissions that are not revised within this period are removed from the system. In exceptional cases, authors may request an extension from the editor. If the revisions are deemed to have adequately addressed the reviewers’ comments, the manuscript is accepted for publication; otherwise, it may be rejected. Authors have the right to submit reasoned and evidence-based objections to the editorial board regarding the review outcome. Such objections must be presented in writing through a “response to reviewers” document, addressing the reviewers’ comments. Objections are evaluated, and when necessary, additional opinions may be requested from the relevant reviewers; the outcome is then communicated to the authors. If the objection is deemed justified, the process is restarted with the appointment of new reviewers. Following the completion of all these stages, and prior to the final acceptance decision, manuscripts are forwarded to Turkish and English language editors. The allocated time for language editing is fifteen days.
Final Checks and Preparation for Publication
Following the completion of the peer review process, manuscripts are subjected to a final review by the editor. At this stage, final proofreading is conducted, and, if deemed necessary, the manuscript may be returned to the author for additional revisions. This process is expected to be completed within five days. Subsequently, manuscripts proceed to DOI assignment and typesetting. The maximum period allocated for the publication process is twenty-one days. Under normal circumstances, the journal aims to complete the entire evaluation process within three months from the date of submission. However, this timeframe may vary depending on the specifics of the review process and exceptional circumstances.
4.2. Plagiarism and Similarity Policy
All manuscripts submitted to the journal are subjected to similarity screening at the submission stage through Intihal.net software. As of the June 2024 issue, the journal has made this screening process mandatory for all submissions within the framework of the collaboration established between DergiPark and Intihal.net. The results of similarity screening are evaluated not as an indication of ethical misconduct, but as part of the journal’s institutional quality standards. If the overall similarity rate exceeds 20%, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) without being sent to the peer review process. Authors may revise and resubmit their work within three weeks. The similarity rate from a single source must not exceed 5%. Editors reserve the right to conduct additional similarity checks during or after the peer review process. Even if the specified threshold values are met, if plagiarism is identified at a later stage, access to the relevant work will be immediately restricted, and the manuscript will be removed from the publication list and the relevant issue. The ethical and legal responsibility for submitted works rests primarily with the authors. All authors submitting to the journal are deemed to have accepted the provisions of this policy at the time of submission.
4.3. Copyright Policy
Authors acknowledge that the manuscripts they submit to the journal are original and do not contain any elements that would constitute a violation of copyright. Any legal and ethical responsibility arising from the use of tables, figures, visuals, scales, questionnaires, documents, translated texts, or any other materials included in the manuscript rests with the authors. The journal requires authors to submit the necessary form within the scope of copyright transfer or publication permission. While authors grant permission for their manuscripts to be published by the journal, they remain responsible for any potential rights violations related to third-party materials used in the work. Authors submitting translation-based manuscripts are required to upload, at the time of submission, a permission document obtained from the original author or rights holder, along with the original version of the text in its source language.
4.4. Open Access Policy
Kronotop Journal of Communication adopts the principle of open access. All academic content published in the journal is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license, unless otherwise specified. Within the scope of this license, published content may be downloaded and shared, provided that proper attribution is given; however, it may not be modified or used for commercial purposes. Full-text access to all articles published in the journal is provided free of charge and immediately via DergiPark. All scholarly content is accessible online without restriction. Readers may read, download, archive, share, and use the published articles for scientific purposes, provided that appropriate citation is given. The open access policy aims to ensure the wider dissemination of scientific knowledge, enhance academic visibility, and strengthen the public circulation of knowledge. Authors are deemed to have accepted that their manuscripts will be published under open access upon acceptance for publication.
4.5. Price and Charges Policy
Kronotop Journal of Communication does not charge authors any prices at any stage of the evaluation, processing, peer review, or publication processes. The journal does not pay royalties to authors and does not provide review prices to reviewers. The journal’s publication policy is based on the principle of the free circulation of scientific knowledge. For detailed information regarding the price policy, please click here.
4.6. Archiving and Preservation Policy
Kronotop Journal of Communication adopts the principles of digital archiving, metadata management, and uninterrupted access in order to ensure the long-term accessibility and institutional integrity of its published content. In this context, all articles published in the journal are digitally archived through the LOCKSS system. The continuity, corrigibility, and traceability of published content within the scholarly record are carefully maintained. Full-text access to all published articles is provided free of charge and without interruption via DergiPark.
4.7. Special Issue Publication Policy
The journal may publish special issues in accordance with a decision of the Editorial Board. Manuscripts submitted for consideration within a special issue are subject to the same procedures as the regular publication process. First, submissions undergo an editorial pre-evaluation and a compliance check with the author guidelines, followed by similarity screening through Intihal.net. Manuscripts that successfully complete these stages proceed to the double-blind peer review process. Articles that receive positive reviewer evaluations are prepared for publication following the completion of language editing, typesetting, and layout processes. All manuscripts submitted to a special issue must fully comply with the journal’s publication ethics principles and policies.
4.8. Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies
Kronotop Journal of Communication carefully evaluates the use of generative artificial intelligence and AI-assisted tools in the academic writing process. Such tools may be used for purposes such as language editing, improving clarity of expression, translation support, or limited technical assistance. However, they may not be used to develop scientific interpretations, generate original arguments, fabricate data, invent sources, or assume authorship responsibility. The journal requires all authors to submit an ethical disclosure form regarding the use of AI during the manuscript submission process. AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. If any AI tool has been used during the manuscript preparation process, its scope and purpose of use must be clearly stated within the author’s disclosure. Full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, ethical compliance, and reliability of sources rests with the authors. In cases involving AI-assisted image generation or modification, the methods and scope of such use must also be explicitly specified. Content that may mislead research findings must be strictly avoided.
4.9. Correction, Retraction, Expression of Concern, and Article Removal
Kronotop Journal of Communication considers the protection of the accuracy, reliability, integrity, and ethical compliance of published works to be one of its core editorial responsibilities. In cases of errors, omissions, ethical violations, scientific invalidity, or legal issues that may arise after publication, the journal acts in accordance with the principles, guidelines, and flowcharts established by COPE. The processes of correction, retraction, expression of concern, and article removal are conducted in order to preserve the transparency of the scholarly record and to ensure that readers are properly informed.
Correction Policy
If, in a published article, errors such as factual inaccuracies, typographical mistakes, technical deficiencies, citation issues, or errors in tables or figures are identified—provided that these do not compromise the overall scientific integrity or main findings of the study—a correction may be issued. Requests for correction may be submitted to the editorial office by authors, editors, reviewers, or third parties. The editorial board evaluates the nature of the reported error and, where necessary, may request clarification or additional documentation from the authors. If the error requires only a limited and technical correction, the appropriate changes may be made directly in the article record, with clear indication of the modifications. In cases requiring more substantial revisions, a separate correction notice is published. The correction notice is clearly linked to the original article. Readers are provided with a clear notification that the article has been corrected, supported by a link directing them to the corrected version or the correction record. The correction notice is published in the first available issue of the journal and, where possible, is assigned as a separate record. In this way, the integrity of the scholarly record is preserved and potential misinterpretation by readers is prevented.
Retraction Policy
An article may be retracted if cases such as plagiarism, fabrication, data falsification, duplicate publication, serious ethical violations, misleading statements, copyright infringement, major methodological errors that invalidate the scientific findings, or legal concerns are identified. The decision to retract is made by the editorial board in accordance with the guidelines of the COPE, and, where necessary, after obtaining explanations from the authors and relevant institutions. Retraction does not mean the complete removal of the published work from the scholarly record. On the contrary, the article remains accessible in the archive; however, its retracted status is clearly, visibly, and permanently indicated. A retraction notice is added to the article record, and the reasons for retraction are explained in a transparent manner. This ensures that readers are clearly informed that the work should no longer be considered a reliable scientific source. The retraction notice is published in the earliest possible issue or, where applicable, at the earliest opportunity within the journal’s digital publishing infrastructure. The notice is directly linked to the retracted article and remains traceable within the scholarly record.
Expression of Concern
If there are serious ethical, scientific, or legal concerns regarding a published article, but the investigation has not yet been completed or the available information is insufficient to reach a definitive conclusion, the editors may issue an expression of concern. This notice serves as a provisional editorial warning, advising readers to exercise caution when engaging with the work in question. Such a measure may be considered particularly in the following situations: when there are substantial doubts about the reliability of the study’s findings; when allegations of ethical misconduct are credible and an investigation is ongoing; when the author or affiliated institution fails to provide an adequate explanation; or when an institutional inquiry is delayed or inconclusive. An expression of concern does not constitute a final decision. Once the investigation process is completed, the notice may be withdrawn, converted into a correction, or followed by a retraction decision.
Article Removal
The complete removal of an article is an exceptional measure applied only in limited circumstances. The journal adheres to the principle of preserving the scholarly record; therefore, removal is a more restrictive and extraordinary action than retraction.
Article removal may be considered in the following cases:
Severe violations of privacy, personal data protection, or the right to be forgotten.
The presence of defamatory content, clear legal violations, or elements that seriously infringe upon individuals’ legal rights.
The existence of legally binding requirements, such as court orders or mandatory administrative decisions.
In such cases, the full text of the article may be removed from access. However, to the extent possible, the bibliographic record is preserved, and the reason for removal is explained through a publicly accessible editorial notice. Where necessary, relevant indexing services, record systems, and technical infrastructures are also informed.
Management of the Processes
All processes related to correction, retraction, expression of concern, and removal are conducted by the editorial board in accordance with the principles of impartiality, proportionality, transparency, and the protection of scientific integrity. Authors are granted the right to provide explanations during these processes; however, final editorial responsibility rests with the journal. When necessary, the journal refers to the flowcharts of the COPE and documents all procedures in alignment with international standards of ethical publishing.
4.10. Data Management and Transparency Policy
All manuscripts submitted to Kronotop Journal of Communication are managed and published through the DergiPark system. Access to manuscript content and author information is restricted according to the role and stage of the publication process. While the Editor-in-Chief has full access to both manuscript content and author information throughout the entire process, the editorial board and other editorial roles have access only to the manuscripts assigned to them. Members of the advisory board do not hold editorial authority in the publication process. The peer review process is conducted in strict accordance with the principles of double-blind review, ensuring confidentiality for both reviewers and authors.
Authors bear primary responsibility for the accuracy and originality of the data, findings, and interpretations presented in their manuscripts. During the editorial evaluation process or after publication, authors may be requested to provide raw data, research materials, interview transcripts, analysis tables, or other supporting documents when deemed necessary. In studies involving personal data belonging to third parties, such data must be anonymized. Manuscripts in which participants’ identities can be linked to the research data are not accepted for publication. In cases where data cannot be shared, the reasons for this must be clearly stated within the manuscript. The journal records article metadata through the DOI system.
Data fabrication and falsification are regarded as violations of scientific integrity and are not accepted under any circumstances. Fabrication refers to the creation and presentation of non-existent data, findings, or sources as part of the scientific record, whereas falsification refers to the manipulation or alteration of research materials, processes, or results in a misleading manner. In cases where there is suspicion of data manipulation, the editorial team is authorized to initiate an investigation. If such a violation is identified during the review process, the manuscript is rejected. If identified after publication, the article is retracted and the situation is publicly disclosed.
4.11. Conflict of Interest Policy
Kronotop Journal of Communication adopts the prevention of conflicts of interest as a fundamental principle in order to safeguard the impartiality and scientific integrity of its publication processes. Accordingly, all parties involved in the process (authors, reviewers, and members of the editorial board) are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
Authors are obliged, at the time of submission, to declare any institutional, financial, personal, or academic conflicts of interest in the relevant disclosure form. Reviewers, for their part, must immediately inform the editor and withdraw from the process if they identify any relationship or conflict of interest that may compromise their objectivity. In the assignment of reviewers, due care is taken to ensure that evaluators are not affiliated with the same institution as the authors and that no direct academic or personal relationship exists between them.
Editors of the journal may not take part in editorial decisions regarding their own work, manuscripts prepared by their family members, or studies authored by researchers with whom they have a personal conflict of interest. If individuals holding any editorial role in the journal, including members of the editorial board, submit a manuscript, their editorial role is suspended until the evaluation process of the relevant submission is completed, and their access to the process-related information is restricted. In this way, institutional impartiality is ensured at every stage of the evaluation process.
4.12. Authorship and Contribution Statement
In Kronotop Journal of Communication, authorship requires a meaningful and direct scholarly contribution to at least one of the following stages: the design of the study, its execution, the interpretation of findings, or the reporting of results. Contributions limited to technical support, assistance with data collection, translation, language editing, administrative facilitation, or the provision of funding do not, on their own, qualify for authorship. Such contributions must be clearly acknowledged in the acknowledgments section of the manuscript. All individuals listed as authors are required to review and approve the final version of the manuscript and to assume responsibility within the scope of their respective contributions.
In multi-authored manuscripts, the extent and nature of each author’s contribution (e.g., conceptual design, data collection, analysis, writing, revision) must be explicitly stated at the end of the manuscript. The order of authorship should reflect the level of contribution, and responsibility for this lies with the authors. Artificial intelligence tools cannot be listed as authors. If such tools have been used, their role must be transparently disclosed in the methods section. Requests for adding, removing, or reordering authors after submission are considered only with the explicit consent of all authors and the approval of the editorial board, and such changes are handled in accordance with the guidelines of the COPE.
5. Responsibilities of Stakeholders
5.1. Responsibilities of the Publisher
Kronotop Journal of Communication is published by the Faculty of Communication at Hatay Mustafa Kemal University. The owner of the journal, on behalf of the Faculty, is the Dean of the Faculty of Communication. The relationship between the publisher and the editors is grounded in the principle of full editorial independence. Accordingly, the publisher has no authority to influence or intervene in editorial decisions.
The publisher assumes the following responsibilities in order to safeguard the journal’s scientific integrity and institutional credibility. The transparent, fair, and impartial conduct of manuscript evaluation processes, as well as the assessment of submissions solely on the basis of academic merit—independent of authors’ gender, ethnicity, religion, political views, or institutional affiliations—constitute fundamental principles. The publisher undertakes to ensure the protection of personal data submitted to the journal and to prevent its disclosure to third parties. Information regarding the appointment and roles of editors and editorial board members is made publicly available on the journal’s website in a transparent manner.
In cases of suspected or identified misconduct—such as plagiarism, abuse, conflicts of interest, copyright violations, or text recycling—the publisher is responsible for initiating and overseeing the necessary procedures to clarify the matter. The publisher also ensures uninterrupted open and free access to journal content and guarantees the long-term preservation of published materials through digital archiving systems.
5.2. Responsibilities of the Editors
The editors of Kronotop Journal of Communication are responsible for maintaining the scientific integrity, ethical standards, and institutional credibility of the publication process. All editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of scholarly merit, without regard to authors’ personal characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, religion, nationality, or political views.
Information obtained during the evaluation process is treated as confidential; the identities of authors and reviewers are accessible only to authorized editorial roles and are not disclosed to third parties. Editors ensure that submitted manuscripts comply with the journal’s aims and scope, oversee the fair and transparent operation of the double-blind peer review process, take measures to prevent conflicts of interest in reviewer assignments, and communicate reviewer feedback to authors. In cases of rejection, authors are provided with reasoned decisions.
In instances where there is suspicion of ethical misconduct—such as duplicate publication, plagiarism, data fabrication, unjustified authorship, or text recycling—editors promptly initiate investigative procedures in accordance with the guidelines of COPE.
If editors or members of the editorial or advisory boards submit a manuscript to the journal, their editorial role is suspended until the evaluation process of the submission is completed. The process is managed by other editors from the outset, and the individual concerned is excluded from all stages, including reviewer selection. To ensure transparency and adherence to ethical standards, a conflict of interest statement is published at the end of the article. In such cases, COPE’s ethical guidelines for editors are followed.
5.3. Responsibilities of Authors
Authors submitting manuscripts to the journal undertake that their work is original, has not been published previously, and is not under consideration elsewhere. Authors are required to prepare their manuscripts in compliance with the Turkish Intellectual and Artistic Works Law (No. 5846), the Council of Higher Education Directive on Scientific Research and Publication Ethics, and the ethical standards established by COPE. The ethical and legal responsibility for the work rests primarily with the authors.
Research findings must be reported in a complete, accurate, and transparent manner, with sufficient detail to allow for reproducibility of methods, analyses, and results. For studies requiring ethics committee approval, the necessary permissions must be obtained, participant consent must be secured, and this information must be clearly stated in the manuscript. When using third-party materials such as scales, visuals, or other content, written permission must be obtained from the rights holders and disclosed in the manuscript. Any sources of funding and potential conflicts of interest must be declared at the time of submission.
To qualify for authorship, individuals must have made a substantial contribution to at least one of the following: conceptualization, study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation of findings; must have critically revised the manuscript; approved the final version; and accepted responsibility for all aspects of the work. Contributions not meeting these criteria should be acknowledged in the acknowledgments section.
The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors meet the authorship criteria, coordinating communication with the journal, and obtaining approval from all authors for revisions. Authors are expected to submit revisions within the specified timeframe and to clearly indicate all changes made to the manuscript. Simultaneous submission to multiple journals or resubmission of previously published work is strictly prohibited. If authors identify a significant error or ethical issue after publication, they are obliged to notify the editorial office immediately and cooperate fully in the correction process.
5.4. Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers are responsible for evaluating manuscripts in accordance with the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers issued by COPE. Upon receiving an invitation to review, reviewers are expected to assess whether the manuscript falls within their area of expertise, whether any conflicts of interest exist, and whether there is any indication that might reveal the author’s identity. If any such conditions are present, the reviewer must promptly inform the editor and withdraw from the process.
Reviewers must conduct their evaluations based on scientific rigor, objectivity, and academic integrity. The originality of the work, its contribution to the literature, methodological soundness, reliability of findings, and validity of conclusions should be systematically assessed. Review reports should be constructive, specific, and free from vague or generalized statements, providing clear feedback on strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement.
Reviewers may suggest citations to their own work only when academically justified and must avoid any statements that could reveal their identity. If a reviewer wishes to consult another researcher during the evaluation process, prior approval from the editorial office is required.
Reviewers are obligated to maintain the confidentiality of all information and documents related to the manuscript during and after the review process. Such materials must not be copied, shared, or used for any other purpose. Any suspicion of plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication, or other ethical concerns identified during the review process must be reported immediately to the editor.
Reviews are expected to be completed within the timeframe specified by the journal. If a delay is anticipated, the reviewer must inform the editor and request an extension. The responsibility of reviewers extends to revision and re-evaluation stages as well.
July 29, 2026
Page
217-247
