Memba Water Sciences Journal follows specific ethical standards to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and the necessary appreciation for original ideas. Memba Water Sciences Journal adheres to the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), complies with the Code of Conduct, and aims to adhere to the Best Practice Guidelines. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (March 7, 2011). The Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors have been obtained from the website https://publicationethics.org/about/guide/journal-editors. Authors submitting manuscripts to the Memba Water Sciences Journal confirm that their work is original and has not been published or is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Additionally, the authors confirm that the submitted articles are not fully or partially copied from other articles or works, nor do they contain plagiarism. The authors confirm that there are no potential conflicts of interest or partial benefits related to their articles. The Memba Water Sciences Journal will check all submitted articles for plagiarism before publication. If plagiarism is detected at any stage of the publication process, the author will be instructed to rewrite the article. To prevent plagiarism, each submission will be scanned by Turnitin®. In the event that any article contains 30% plagiarism, the article will be rejected and the author will be informed. We strongly advise authors to check the article content before submitting it for publication. Plagiarism can be checked using free online software. Memba Water Sciences Journal is committed to impartial and fair blind peer reviews of submitted articles and to preventing any real or potential conflicts of interest between authors and reviewers. RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS AND THE PUBLISHING BOARD Publication Responsibilities and Independence All editors of the Memba Water Sciences Journal are independent in their evaluations and decisions regarding the journal. No external and/or internal factor can influence their decisions. If the editors are subjected to any positive and/or negative restrictions, they reserve the right to take legal action against those involved in the restriction. On the other hand, editors are responsible for the decisions made in the journal. The editor is the sole person responsible for the journal's content and timely publication. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Journal editors and members of the Editorial Board are prohibited from sharing submitted materials with third parties outside of section editors, statistical editors, language editors, editors, design editors, and ombudsmen, and from using the submitted materials themselves. If there is a conflict of interest in terms of collaboration or competition between an editor and the author or the author's institution, another member of the Editorial Board is assigned to manage the review process. Publication Decisions Editors ensure the peer review of submitted articles by appointing at least two referees who are experts in the field. The Editor is responsible for the decision to publish an article, considering the importance of the writings for researchers and readers, peer review reports, and legal issues such as plagiarism and copyright infringement. The editor may discuss their decision with other editors and reviewers. RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS Contribution to the Editor's Decision The peer review of a submitted article is the communication of the reviewer's opinion on the suitability of the scientific content, scientific organization, and adherence to the journal's principles, as well as the identification of any inappropriate content. The review process not only provides reviewers the opportunity to convey their evaluations of the articles to the editors but also gives them the chance to improve the content of the articles. Speed If a referee assigned to evaluate an article is an expert in a field other than the content of the article, is distant from the subject of the article, has a short time for evaluation, or has a conflict of interest, they should inform the assigning editor and request to withdraw. If the content of the article aligns with the referee's area of expertise, they should complete the evaluation and send the report to the editor as soon as possible. Confidentiality Reviewers assigned to evaluate the articles acknowledge in advance that the articles are confidential documents and do not share any information related to these documents with third parties other than the editors involved in the review. Reviewers continue to refrain from sharing information even after the articles have been accepted or rejected for publication. If there is suspicion that an idea submitted for review in the article has been used without permission, COPE can follow the flowchart "What should you do if you suspect a reviewer has appropriated an author's ideas or data?" Standards of Objectivity: Reviewers should base their critiques on scientific background and include scientific evidence in their explanations. All comments made by reviewers to improve the articles should be clear and direct, and written in a way that does not disturb the author's feelings. Insults and derogatory remarks should be avoided. The Appropriateness of Cited References Reviewers should quote from the works used without citing the sources. Expressions, observations, results, or evidence in published articles should be cited with references to the relevant sources. Reviewers should also ensure the authenticity of the cited references. Conflict of Interest If an editor is in a situation where a referee enters into one or more areas of interest with the author(s), they should inform the editor who made the appointment and request a withdrawal. AUTHORS' RESPONSIBILITIES Reporting Standards Authors of original research articles should present their results and discuss them appropriately. Since the methodological content of the articles should be reproducible, authors must be clear in their statements and should not intentionally report false or incomplete data. Authors of review-type articles are advised not to write such articles if they are not experts in the review topics or do not have sufficient background knowledge or relevant previous studies. Data Access and Storage Authors may be asked to present their raw data when necessary (ethical situations, etc.). Therefore, the raw data of the articles should be securely stored so that it can be presented when necessary. The retention period for raw data following publications should be at least 10 years. Originality and Plagiarism Authors of submitted articles must ensure that their articles are original or include citation references for quotations. Multiple, Redundant, Duplicate, or Concurrent Submissions It is not an approved practice to produce multiple publication reports on the same research. Authors should be mindful of such situations and should not submit the same article to different journals simultaneously. Authorship Only the following individuals should be listed as corresponding authors in articles: • Researchers who made significant contributions to the concept, design, performance, data collection, and/or analysis of a study, • Researchers involved in the preparation or critical revision of the manuscripts, • Researchers who approved the final version of the articles and accepted their submission. Contributors not included in the above list (technical assistance, writing and editing assistants, general contributions, etc.) should not be included in the list of authors but can be listed in the acknowledgments section. The relevant authors of the articles should provide a separate list of those who contributed as authors and those who will be included in the acknowledgment section. Conflict of Interest Authors must clearly declare any conflicts of interest in their writings. It should also be declared that there is no conflict of interest related to the subject of the writings. The most common types of conflicts of interest are financial supports, training or other types of funds, personal or institutional relationships, and memberships. All sources of financial support for the studies (including grants or other reference numbers) must be declared. Acceptance of References: Authors should not use personally obtained information (conversations, correspondence, or discussions with people in the environment) without the permission of the sources. Information related to the peer review of private documents or grant applications should not be used without the permission of the relevant authorities. Peer Review Authors must participate in the peer review process and cooperate by responding to raw data, evidence related to ethical approvals, patient consents, and editors' copyright publication requests and statements. Authors must respond positively or negatively to the revision suggestions generated by the peer review process. They should ensure that they include their counterarguments against the negative responses. Authors must confirm the following: 1. The articles must be the original work of the submitting author. 2. The submitted articles must not have been published. 3. There should be no conflict of interest. If there is any, it should be clearly stated. 4. Authors must reference all data sources used in the preparation of the manuscript. Note: Submitting an article to multiple journals simultaneously is unethical. Reviewers must confirm the following: 1. Manuscripts are reviewed fairly based on the intellectual content of the article, regardless of the authors' gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenship, or political views. 2. Any conflicts of interest observed during the review process should be sent to the editor. 3. Information related to the manuscript is kept confidential. 4. Information that could lead to the rejection of the publication should be sent to the editor. Editors must approve the following: 1. Articles are reviewed fairly based on the intellectual content of the paper, regardless of the authors' gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenship, or political views. 2. Information regarding the articles is kept confidential. 3. Any observed conflicts of interest related to the writings must be disclosed. Ethical Guidelines on the Use of Animals in Research The Memba Water Sciences Journal endorses the ARRIVE guidelines (www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE) for reporting experiments involving live animals. Authors and reviewers can use the ARRIVE guidelines, available at www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVEchecklist, as a checklist. Articles containing original research involving animals must be approved by an ethics review committee. The project identification code, approval date, and the name of the ethics committee or institutional review board must be specified in the Materials and Methods Section and also on the first/last page of the article. For research involving animals, the potential benefits obtained must be significant in relation to the harm suffered by the participating animals. Authors must ensure that their research is particularly consistent with the generally accepted "3Rs": • Replacement of animals with alternatives wherever possible, • Reduction in the number of animals used, and • Improvement of experimental conditions and procedures to minimize harm to animals. DISCLAIMER The editor or editorial board members are not responsible for the author's views and the content of the article. The authors are responsible for the ethical originality of their writings and any possible errors. Additionally, they are responsible for all errors based on page layout before proofreading. On the other hand, errors that occur after the editorial process are the responsibility of the journal editors. Note: The corresponding author must make corrections within 2 months; otherwise, the article may be rejected.
Note: The Editorial Board assumes the responsibility of making publication decisions based on the reviewer's evaluation of submitted articles, the policies of the journal's editorial board, and legal efforts to prevent plagiarism, defamation, and copyright violations. year.