ETHICS AND PUBLICATION POLICIES

The METU Studies in Development (METUSD) Journal is obliged to adhere to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing prepared by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in the publication of articles. Both editors and reviewers pledge to comply with the COPE Guidelines for Editors and COPE Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers, respectively.

METUSD applies the open access criteria specified by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI). Additionally, the METUSD Journal considers Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive and the publication principles determined by DergiPark under TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM.

Authors submitting their work to the METUSD Journal are responsible for adhering to ethical rules and are deemed to declare that they have not committed any ethical violations. Submissions that violate ethical standards will not be reviewed, and any other submissions by the author(s) will not be considered. If an ethical violation is identified, a report will be sent to the author(s) and, if necessary, to the relevant institutions.

In this context, all stakeholders contributing to the publication process (authors, researchers, reviewers, and editors) are expected to fulfill the following responsibilities to ensure adherence to ethical principles.

Responsibilities of Authors

• The author(s) is (are) fully responsible for ensuring that the manuscripts comply with scientific and ethical standards. Any consequences arising from failure to comply with ethical principles rests with the author(s).
• The authors are deemed to warrant that the submitted manuscript is original, has not been published elsewhere, does not contain plagiarism and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere and/ or in another language.
• Manuscripts submitted to the METU Studies in Development are screened for similarity by the Editorial Board using reliable plagiarism detection software before they are considered for peer review. A manuscript is considered to contain plagiarism if it is found to be substantially similar to previously published works, including the author(s)' own published work, or if it is determined that material from other sources has been used without proper citation or appropriate referencing.
• Manuscripts in which plagiarism is detected will be rejected or, if already published, withdrawn from publication.
• The author(s) confirms (confirm) that the manuscript text, tables, figures, and images do not infringe the copyright of others. In multi-author papers, all authors confirm their individual contributions, accept responsibility for the work, and approve the final version of the manuscript.
• The author(s) may be requested to provide raw data as a part of the review process; in such cases, the author(s) commits (commit) to supply the required data and information to the editorial and scientific boards.
•  No author’s name can be removed, added, or reordered without the written consent of all authors during the review process. However, changes to titles and affiliations are allowed.
•  If author(s) identifies (identify) errors or omissions in the work during the review or after publication, the author(s) is (are) responsible for informing the editor and/or publisher and cooperating with the editor to correct or retract the work.
•  If the research is derived from a thesis, this must be indicated in a footnote on the first page of the manuscript.
•  The use of generative artificial intelligence (AI), large language models (LLMs), and other AI-based tools in manuscript preparation, peer review, and editorial processes has been rapidly increasing in recent years. Accordingly, the Journal permits the use of such tools only on a LIMITED basis and only when their use is consistent with the Journal's publication policies and ethical standards. The use of AI-based tools must comply with the recommendations and principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM), and TÜBİTAK's Guidelines for the Responsible and Trustworthy Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Research Support Processes. Authors, reviewers, and editors are fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and ethical compliance of all submitted and published content, regardless of whether AI tools have been used or not.
• Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscripts. They must ensure that the manuscripts submitted to the Journal reflect their own original ideas, contributions, analyses, and interpretations. AI tools may be used only for supportive purposes, such as improving language and style, editing the text, refining search terms and facilitating the discovery of relevant literature. Authors are responsible for verifying all references suggested by AI tools against the original sources and examine any sources the tools cite personally. AI-generated outputs must not be used as scientific sources or cited as evidence. Since AI tools may generate inaccurate, incomplete or biased information, authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy, reliability, confidentiality, and impartiality of any AI-generated content used in their work. AI-generated outputs must not be cited as references in the reference list or footnotes. Ethical guidelines regarding scientific research must be adhered to in the use of AI tools. Authors should exercise due care to protect confidentiality, ensure data security, and avoid copyright infringement when using AI tools. Creation of AI-generated figures, graphs, or illustrations is not permitted. Images may be modified using AI tools only for limited basic adjustments, such as brightness, contrast, or color balance.
• For all studies that require Ethics Committee approval, the ethics committee approval document must be uploaded as a SUPPLEMENTARY FILE when the manuscript is submitted to the system. In addition, information regarding the approval (name of the committee, date, and approval number) must be stated on the last page of the article and in the methodology section, indicating compliance with ethical guidelines.
• Manuscripts that do not comply with the journal’s publication principles will not be included in the peer review process.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

The METUSD Journal conducts its review process within the principle of double-blind review. The reviewer comments and evaluation forms are communicated to the authors through the editorial system (Dergipark). In this context, reviewers are expected to consider the following ethical responsibilities:

• The reviewers are expected to agree to review only manuscripts that fall within their scope of expertise and for which they can dedicate time to review.
• The reviewers must evaluate manuscripts impartially and independently of the authors' gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, beliefs, political views, etc. The reviewers must act honestly, fairly, and confidentially.
• The reviewers must avoid conflicts of interest with authors, the study, institutions, or funding sources (if any). If a conflict exists, reviewers must withdraw from the review.
• Article evaluation forms must be completed fully for all types of reviewer decisions (minor revisions, major revisions, and rejections). Furthermore, after revisions, a post-revision decision form must be completed for the revised article. In case of a rejection decision, a detailed justification must be provided.
• The reviewers must maintain confidentiality regarding the reviewed work and the review process even after the article review process has been concluded.
• The reviewers must not use any unpublished data from manuscripts they have reviewed for their own purposes.
   

Responsibilities of Editors

• The editors evaluate submitted manuscripts for compliance with the journal’s aims, scope, publication principles, ethical standards, and academic originality. They may decide to initiate peer review or reject the manuscript.
• The editors treat authors and manuscripts impartially, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, beliefs, or political views.
• The editors implement double-blind peer review and other procedures in line with the journal’s policies. At least two reviewers are consulted; if one recommends acceptance and the other rejection, a third reviewer is consulted.
• The editors do not share manuscript information with anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and editorial board. They ensure confidentiality until publication.
• The editors must avoid conflicts of interest with author(s), institutions, or funding sources (if any); if a conflict arises, they must recuse themselves.
• If editors detect or are informed of violations of scientific publishing ethics, they act in accordance with the Publication Ethics Guidelines of Higher Education Institutions.
• The editors cannot use unpublished information from submitted manuscripts for their own research without the authors’ explicit written permission.
• If a violation regarding utilization of AI tools is identified after publication, corrective actions may be taken, such as publishing a correction or retracting the article.