Kronotop Journal of Communication’s publication policy adheres to research and publication ethics. The journal’s principles include complying with ethical standards in scientific publication, and its publication policy is developed in line with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
As a part of its editorial policy, Kronotop Journal of Communication follows the standards set out in the “Turkish Higher Education Board Guidelines on Scientific Research and Publication Ethics.” https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Mevzuat/yuksekogretim-kurumlari-bilimsel-arastirma-ve-yayin-etigi-yonergesi.pdf
The full text of the guidelines can be found at: https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Kurumsal/mevzuat/bilimsel-arastirma-ve-etik-yonetmeligi.aspx
By submitting their work, authors confirm that their submissions don’t contain research and publication ethics violations set out in the guidelines, which are included but not limited to plagiarism, forgery, perversion, reproduction, partitioning, and unearned authorship. All responsibility in this regard lies with the authors.
The following subsections detail the journal’s publication policy, pricing policy, submission evaluation process, plagiarism policy, and the duties of editors and referees.
Publication Policy
Kronotop Journal of Communication is an open-access, free of charge journal published twice yearly (January and July) by the Communication Faculty at Hatay Mustafa Kemal University. Submissions are subject to a double-blind peer review. Kronotop Journal of Communication accepts submissions through the Dergipark platform, and no other submission channels are available.
Submissions to the Kronotop Journal of Communication are subject to a preliminary evaluation by the publication’s editors. Articles are evaluated comprehensively by the editors in terms of thematic adherence to the magazine’s aims and scope, scientific contribution to the field, uniqueness, and compliance with academic ethics. Submissions found to be lacking in one or more of these areas are returned to the authors without progressing to the peer-review stage.
Editorial Responsibility
Kronotop Journal of Communication defines its editorial responsibility and fundamental publication standards according to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guide for magazine editors.
The full text of the guide can be found at https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf. Editorial duties of the Kronotop Journal of Communication, based on the foundational principles laid out in the guide, are as follows:
The editors guarantee the scientific compliance and impartiality of the double-blind peer review process used to evaluate submissions to the journal.
The editors assure the confidentiality of the information contained in submissions to the magazine, and the management of the publication process. The editors will exercise the utmost caution in this regard.
The editors aim to apply ethical principles to every stage of the publication process, and they reserve the right to amend, expand, or withdraw submitted articles in line with their duties and responsibilities. The withdrawal of submitted articles is performed in line with COPE guidance.
The editors of Kronotop Journal of Communication exercise utmost vigilance when it comes to the safeguarding of personal information. To this end, relevant legislature regarding the protection of personal information and fundamental scientific principles in this regard are followed.
The editors continuously review their publication policy in line with fundamental ethical standards in scientific publishing and Kronotop Journal of Communication’s existing guidelines, in order to preserve authors’ rights and the academic integrity of the published studies. To this end, the editors make sure that submissions to the journal comply with the publication’s aims and the desired publication quality.
In line with COPE guidance, the editors evaluate the compliance of submissions to the magazine with scientific publication ethics within the framework of the necessary permissions obtained from the relevant institutions and international standards. In this context, ethical standards that are expected to be adhered to are clearly defined.
The editors have a duty to investigate accusations of possible misconduct in a sensitive manner. The investigation will look into published and unpublished articles, and the process will be managed in compliance with the COPE ethical violations investigation and management flowchart. To view the flowchart recommended by COPE for editors to follow, click here: https://publicationethics.org/flowcharts
Reference: https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf
Referees’ Duties
Referees who are sent articles submitted to the Kronotop Journal of Communication for consideration must adhere to fundamental scientific evaluation criteria throughout the entire process, based on the valuation principles and standards set out by COPE.
Referees must be impartial when evaluating articles.
Referees have a duty to keep information confidential regarding the content of submissions and the evaluation process.
Referees are expected to be mindful of the alignment between the article submitted to them and their own field of work, and their evaluations must be detailed and comprehensive.
Referees follow the schedule determined by Kronotop Journal of Communication when evaluating articles.
In case of encountering any ethical violations, referees must write a comprehensive report. Referees have a duty to inform the editors at Kronotop Journal of Communication if there are possible conflicts of interest.
Authors’ Duties
By submitting their work to Kronotop Journal of Communication, authors confirm that their article hasn’t previously been published or submitted elsewhere for future publication. The full responsibility to ensure this lies with the author.
Authors confirm that the work they submit adheres to ethical principles regarding scientific research. The sole responsibility in this regard lies with the authors, and submissions found to contain violations of academic publication ethics will not be taken into consideration for publication.
For works that require permission from an ethics committee, the relevant report must be uploaded onto the system along with the text of the submitted article. The TR Dizin evaluation criteria includes details of how authors must include the relevant ethics committee clearance in their articles, and this format must be followed. Details can be found below:
“For research that is subject to ethics committee permission, the ‘method’ section must include details of the clearance (ethics committee name, date, and document number); the first or last few pages and case study presentations must include a disclaimer that informed consent forms were signed by volunteers.” (https://trdizin.gov.tr/kriterler/)
If the article involves the participation of third parties, such as surveys, interviews, focus groups, etc. the responsibility to obtain consent from participants and to ensure confidentiality of participants’ data lies with the authors. The editors reserve the right to request further information and/or documentation from authors when necessary.
Authors must show any amendments to the text suggested by the referees who evaluated their submission if they agree with the changes. The “track changes” function in MS Word must be used to show such changes.
Articles that are based on a postgraduate dissertation or those initially presented at a scientific conference and then expanded must contain a disclaimer explaining this in detail in the form of a footnote adjacent to the title. If support was obtained from any institution while producing the article, this must also be explained in detail in a footnote adjacent to the title. Authors must state if there are any individuals or institutions they wish to thank in their article. The information must be prepared in accordance with the methods outlined by the Kronotop Journal of Communication and defined under the title “Article Evaluation Process.”
Authors wishing to submit translated works must send the original author’s permission and the article in the source language alongside the translated article. Authors must comply with the relevant copyright legislation regarding the materials they use in their work; the full responsibility in this regard lies with the authors. If an article is written by more than one author, the ratio of their contributions must be stated at the end of the article. Authors must include a declaration of conflict of interest at the end of the article.
Plagiarism Policy
Submissions to the Kronotop Journal of Communication are checked using the iThenticate software, which reports on the similarity percentage of the text with other texts. The total similarity percentage must not be greater than 15%, while the upper limit for the similarity percentage from a single source is 3%. Submissions that exceed these limits will not be considered.
Pricing Policy
The publication does not request payment from the authors for any reason at any stage of the process.
The publication does not remunerate authors for the copyright to their work; by submitting the copyright transfer agreement to the journal, authors accept that they have transferred the copyright to their work to Kronotop Journal of Communication.
The publication does not make payments to referees.
Submission Evaluation Process
After the submission is uploaded onto the Dergipark system, provided that the work adheres to the publication policy and writing guidelines, and the copyright transfer agreement, article title page, and similarity percentage report are included in the submission, along with the ethics committee permission if necessary, it will be subject to a preliminary evaluation by the editors. The “title page” document must contain the title of the article, names of the author(s), name of the institution, e-mail addresses, and ORCID information. On the title page, the title of the article must include a footnote containing a conflict of interest declaration, information regarding the ratio of the contributions by authors, the type of article, and if applicable:
• Details of the supporting institution,
• Information on whether the article is a part of a dissertation, an expanded presentation, or part of a project,
• An acknowledgements section.
The editors may request additional documentation from the authors, including but not limited to waivers related to the ethics commission process and consent from individuals and institutions.
The editors complete the preliminary evaluation of submissions within two weeks. If the outcome of the preliminary evaluation is positive, the article is sent to two referees working in a relevant field. The referees submit their reports within the required timeframe, and if both referees provide positive feedback, the article is sent to the editors to be included in the publication.
If both referees provide negative feedback, the article is returned to the authors.
If one referee provides negative feedback and the other positive, the article is sent to a third referee. The editor has the final say regarding publication at the end of this process.
Authors are expected to make the necessary changes within 15 days when articles are returned to them with suggested amendments. When those changes are made, the article may be submitted again, after which it will be sent back to the referees. The editors will make a decision regarding publication based on the feedback from the referees to the amended article.
January 25, 2025
Page
1-22