Corporate ESG Transformation in the Türkiye Insurance Sector: A Thematic Content Analysis Approach

Please use the following templates and files:

Click here to download the manuscript template

Click here to download the cover page template

Click here to download the checklist file

Click here to download the Copyright Agreement Form

• Articles written in Turkish and English are accepted by the journal

• Manuscripts to be submitted should not exceed 27 pages, including text, tables, figures, references, and appendices.

• Since the double blind peer-review system is implemented through DergiPark, the article and the cover page must be submitted as two separate files.

• In double anonymized peer review, both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. Authors must prepare their manuscripts to prevent revealing their identities by removing any identifying information, such as names and affiliations. They should refer to their previous work in the third person and exclude acknowledgements and funding references from the manuscript.

• Authors should also ensure that figures, tables, and file properties are anonymized, and that file names are carefully chosen.

• Only the cover page should contain identifying details. The cover page, which includes author details, should be submitted separately. The cover page should include the title of the article, the names and surnames of all authors, their titles, their institutions, email addresses, ORCID numbers, and, if there is more than one author, the corresponding author’s contact details, including a telephone number. Additionally, any acknowledgments (e.g., to individuals or institutions) and other explanations or notes, if any, should be included.

• On the cover page, the table regarding the authors' contributions must be completed. The authors' contribution rates should be specified for conception or design of the work, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, drafting the article, critical revision of the article and final approval of the version to be published.

The following writing rules must be considered in articles

Click here for detailed Guide for Authors.

Title

• The title should be concise and provide clear information about the subject of the article.

Abstract

• After the English title, abstract should follow. The abstract should concisely explain the purpose of the study, the methods applied, the findings, and the results. The abstract must not exceed 150 words.

Keywords

• At the end of the abstract, a maximum of four keywords that best describe the content of the article must be provided.

Jel Classification

• Appropriate JEL classification codes should be provided for the study. For JEL Classification System, please click here.

Türkish Title

• Provide Turkish title

Turkish Abstract

• The Turkish abstract should not exceed 150 words.

Turkish Keywords

• Turkish keywords should be provided here.

Jel Classification

• Appropriate Jel classification numbers should be given for the study.

Extended Summaryt

• Extended summaries are not required for manuscripts written in English.

Introduction 

• The introduction should begin on the second page and be labeled as "1. Introduction."
• he introduction section should present the research topic, define the research problem, outline the study's objectives, and explain its significance. It should set the context, highlight the research gap, and prepare the reader for the study's approach and structure.

Literature Review 

• The literature review section should provide a comprehensive overview of existing research related to the study topic. It should critically analyze and synthesize relevant theories, concepts, and findings from previous studies, identifying patterns, trends, and gaps in the literature. This section should establish the foundation for the current research by showing how it builds on or differs from past work. It helps to justify the research problem, support the research methodology, and demonstrate the study's contribution to the academic field.

Data and Methodology

• The Data and Methodology section should provide detailed information about how the research was conducted. It should explain the data sources, the methods used to collect the data, and the analytical techniques employed to answer the research questions.
• The data section describes the data used in the study, including the type (e.g., qualitative or quantitative), source (e.g., surveys, databases, experiments), and time frame. It also includes information about any variables measured and how the data were selected or sampled.
• Methodology section outlines the approach used to analyze the data. This can include econometric techniques , qualitative methods etc. It also explains why these methods were chosen, how they were applied, and any assumptions or limitations involved.

Results and Discussions

• The Results section presents the raw data, while the Discussion interprets and contextualizes those findings.
• Results section should clearly present the main findings of the study. It may include tables, graphs, and charts to summarize the data in a digestible format.
• The results should be supported by statistical tests (if applicable) or qualitative analysis, with important trends or patterns highlighted.
• The results section should focus on presenting the facts without interpretation or speculation.
• In Discussion section, the researcher should explain the meaning of the results, how they answer the research questions, and how they relate to previous studies.
• The findings are compared to existing research, highlighting similarities, differences, or contradictions.
• The researcher discusses the implications of the results, both theoretically and practically.

Conclusion

• The conclusion section should also be numbered.
• The conclusion should provide a clear, final statement on the study's overall significance, leaving the reader with a sense of closure.
• The Conclusion section should summarize the main findings of the study, offering a concise overview of the results and their implications.
• Briefly restate the primary results and how they address the research questions or hypotheses.
• Discuss the broader implications of the findings, both in terms of theory and practical application.
• Highlight the unique contributions the study makes to the field and how it advances knowledge.
• Acknowledge any limitations of the study that could impact the interpretation or generalizability of the results.
• Recommend areas for future research, based on the study's findings or limitations.

Authorship, Conflict of Interest, Funding and Ethical Statements

• After the conclusion section, the authors' Authorship Declaration, Conflict of Interest Statement, Funding Statement, and Ethical Statement should be included with appropriate content.
  

Headings and Subheadings

• In all titles, the first letters of the major words should be capitalized, and the other letters should be lowercase.
• Main headings should begin with “1. Introduction," and subheadings should be numbered hierarchically, such as 2.1.
• All headings must be formatted in bold.
• A single line of space must be left before main headings.

Figures and Tables

• All figures and tables must be inserted into the text in their appropriate locations and numbered sequentially.
• Figures and tables should be mentioned by referring the number in the text.
• All types of graphical displays other than tables are considered figures.
• Table and figure titles should be placed at the top. Notes related to tables and figures, as well as any cited sources, should be indicated at the bottom.
• Use borders in tables sparingly for clarity—only at the top, bottom, under headings, above spanners, and to separate summary rows. Avoid vertical borders and cell outlines, relying instead on spacing and alignment to show relationships.
  

Equations

• Equations must be numbered sequentially.
•  Equations should not be in picture format.

Abbreviations 

• All abbreviations must be written in full within parentheses upon first use.

Appendices

• Appendices, if included, must be placed after the References. For only one appendix, use the label “Appendix.”; for multiple appendices, use the label “Appendix A”, "Appendix B" accordingly.

Usage of Decimal Points and Thousand Separators in Numbers

• In all numerical expressions, the journal follows the international standard for decimal and thousand separators:

A period (.) is used as the decimal separator (e.g., 10.25, 3.1415).
A comma (,) is used as the thousands separator in numbers with four or more digits (e.g., 1,000, 10,500, 1,250,000).

• Authors should ensure consistency in numerical formatting throughout their manuscripts.

Citations and References

• Citations and references must adhere to the publication guidelines of the APA 7 (American Psychological Association) Manual.
• All works cited in the text must be included in the References. The References must include all sources cited in the article and exclude any works not referenced in the text.
• Citations must be provided within the text not in footnotes.
• If the sentence does not include the title of the work, the citation should appear in parentheses at the end of the sentence, e.g., (Sharpe, 2005). For two authors, citations must be formatted as (Altınok & Eken, 2005), for more than two (Eken et al., 2015).
• To specify page numbers, include them after the year, separated by a comma, e.g., (Ansari, 2007, p. 126).
• When citing multiple works in the same sentence, sort alphabetically and separate them with semicolons within the parentheses, e.g., (Eken 2008; Kale 205; Sharpe, 2005; Taylor et al., 1970 ).
• For narrative citation include the author’s surname and the publication year in parentheses, e.g., According to Sharpe (2005).
• If the year and author is the part of the sentence do not cite. e.g. "In 1952, Markowitz introduced a new approach in portfolio management..."
• For a work with one or two authors, works, use author(s) information in every citations. e.g. (Altınok & Eken, 2005.
• For a work with three or more authors, use the information of only the first author plus "et al." in every citation. e.g. (Eken et al., 2008).
• If an author has multiple works published in the same year, differentiate them using letters (e.g., İlseven, 2005a; İlseven, 2005b).
• If two authors have the same surnames in citation, use initials in every usage. e.g. (S. Kale, 2015; H. Kale 2020) 
• Abbreviations may be used for institutional studies, and, where applicable, the short name of the work may be included as descriptive information (e.g., CMB Communiqué No. xxx, 2004).
• When citing laws, communiqués, or regulations, include the law number and article number clearly, e.g., (Law No. 3167, Article 16).
• Cite primary sources when possible, and sparingly use secondary sources.
• Referenced works must be listed in the "References" section.
• When listing references, attention should be paid to the type of source being referenced.
• For including online sources, the correct classification of the source must be determined. For example, a report obtained from a government institution’s website should be cited as a report, not as a website.
• For online sources with a DOI, only the DOI should be provided. If an online source does not have a DOI and is accessible to the user, the URL should be included.
• References should be listed in alphabetical order based on the author’s surname.
• Online and printed sources should be listed together and not separated into different sections.

Reference Examples

• Articles (with DOI):
  Avkiran, N. K. (2011). Association of DEA Super-Efficiency Estimates with Financial Ratios: Investigating The Case For Chinese Banks. Omega, 39(3), 323-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2010.08.001

• Articles (without DOI):
  Türkdönmez, C. S., & Babuşcu, Ş. (2019). Bankaların Karlılık Performansını Etkileyen Faktörler. Başkent Üniversitesi Ticari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 37-54. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jcsci/issue/44583/524800

• Book (with DOI)
  Ray, S. C. (2004). Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory and Techniques for Economics and Operations Research. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606731

• Book (without DOI)
  Krolzig, H.-M. (2013). Markov-Switching Vector Autoregressions: Modelling, Statistical Inference, and Application to Business Cycle Analysis. Springer Science & Business Media.
  Bildirici, M. E., Alp, E. A., Ersin, Ö. Ö., & Bozoklu, Ü. (2010). İktisatta Kullanılan Doğrusal Olmayan Zaman Serisi Yöntemleri. Türkmen Kitabevi.
  

• Chapter in Book:
  Paradi, J. C., Yang, Z., & Zhu, H. (2011). Assessing Bank and Bank Branch Performance. In W. W. Cooper, L. M. Seiford, & J. Zhu (Eds.), Handbook on Data Envelopment Analysis (pp. 315-361). Springer.
  

• Report:
  IMF (2024). World Economic Outlook. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WEO/2024/October/English/text.ashx
  

• Dataset
  Worldbank (2025). World Development Indicators (Data Set). https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
  

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

• Journal of Finance Letters (Maliye ve Finans Yazıları) adheres to academic principles and ethical values in its publishing policy. It continues its publishing activities in compliance with national and international standards related to ethical principles and values. In this context, the standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the principles outlined in the Higher Education Institutions Directive on Scientific Research and Publication Ethics are taken into consideration.

• If a submitted manuscript is found to violate the accepted research and publication ethics during the review process, its publication request will be rejected. If such a violation is detected after publication, the manuscript will be retracted.

• Our journal engages in ethical, targeted, and non-intrusive communication with potential authors. We do not engage in excessive solicitation or misleading promotional practices. All marketing efforts are aligned with the journal’s academic mission and scope.

For Authors

• Authors must review, confirm, and commit to compliance with the ethical standards, publishing principles, and writing guidelines adopted by the journal before submitting their manuscripts. Our journal endorses the guidelines in Wager & Kleinert (2011)* for authors. The guidelines are summarized below. Please click here for details.
• *Wager E & Kleinert S (2011) Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. Chapter 50 in: Mayer T & Steneck N (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp 309-16). (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7)
  
  
• Soundness and Reliability
  
• Research integrity begins with rigorous methodology and ethical execution. The standards emphasize that all research must comply with legal and ethical norms, including adherence to institutional review board (IRB) approvals, animal welfare regulations, and data protection laws. Researchers must ensure their work is methodologically sound, replicable, and free from avoidable errors. This involves using appropriate analytical techniques, consulting specialists when needed, and meticulously verifying data, calculations, and interpretations at every stage of publication.
  
• A critical aspect of reliability is collective accountability. All authors must review the final manuscript to confirm accuracy and completeness. This shared responsibility discourages negligence and ensures that published findings reflect a unified commitment to truthfulness. Institutions are urged to foster environments where meticulousness and transparency are prioritized, as errors in published work can undermine public trust and scientific progress.
  
  
• Honesty in Reporting
  
• Honesty is the cornerstone of credible research. Authors must avoid fabrication (inventing data), falsification (distorting results), and inappropriate manipulation (e.g., misleading image edits in microscopy or gels). Transparent methodology is essential: publications should provide sufficient detail for independent replication, including raw data availability where feasible.
• The guidelines explicitly reject selective reporting. Negative or contradictory results must not be omitted, as they contribute to a balanced understanding of a topic. Sponsors or funders must not suppress unfavorable findings, except in rare cases involving national security. Authors are also obligated to promptly correct errors post-publication through retractions or corrigenda, reinforcing the self-correcting nature of science.
• Citations and references must reflect genuine engagement with prior work. “Citation stuffing” (irrelevant references) or copying references without reading the original work is unethical. Proper attribution safeguards intellectual property and contextualizes the study within the broader scholarly discourse.
  
  
• Balance and Contextualization
  
• Research publications must avoid bias by fairly representing existing literature. Scholarly reviews should synthesize findings regardless of whether they support the authors’ hypotheses, and opinion pieces must be clearly labeled as such. Acknowledging limitations—such as sample size constraints or methodological weaknesses—enhances credibility and guides future research.
  
  
• Originality and Plagiarism Avoidance
  
• Submissions must be original, unpublished works. Plagiarism, including “self-plagiarism” (recycling text without citation), is strictly prohibited. Authors must obtain permissions for reproduced copyrighted material (e.g., figures, tables) and disclose prior publications or overlapping analyses derived from the same dataset.
• “Salami slicing” (splitting a single study into multiple papers) is discouraged unless justified by distinct hypotheses or audiences. Translations or adaptations must credit the original work and comply with copyright laws.
  
  
• Transparency in Funding and Conflicts of Interest
  
• Full disclosure of funding sources—direct, indirect, or in-kind—is mandatory. Authors must clarify the sponsor’s role in study design, analysis, or reporting. Financial conflicts (e.g., stock ownership, consultancy fees) and non-financial biases (e.g., personal relationships, institutional affiliations) that could influence interpretation must be declared. Journals may require conflict-of-interest statements to ensure readers can assess potential biases.
  
  
• Authorship and Contribution Ethics
  
• Authorship must reflect substantive intellectual contributions, such as study design, data analysis, or critical manuscript revisions. Honorary (“gift”) authorship, ghostwriting (excluding contributors who meet criteria), and coercive inclusion (“guest” authorship) violate ethical norms. Institutions and journals should establish clear authorship criteria upfront and mediate disputes transparently.
• All authors must approve the final manuscript and any subsequent changes to the author list. The corresponding author acts as a liaison with editors but must involve co-authors in major decisions, such as responding to peer review. Misleading acknowledgments—implying endorsement by uninvolved individuals—are prohibited.
  
  
• Accountability and Post-Publication Conduct
  
• Authors must understand and endorse the entire publication. While collective responsibility is standard, individual roles (e.g., data analysis vs. writing) may be specified. Post-publication, authors should engage constructively with critiques, provide clarifications, and share data/materials upon request (within ethical and legal boundaries).
• Data hoarding for personal gain or authorship coercion contradicts collaborative ideals. Institutions and funders should establish clear data-sharing policies, balancing openness with privacy concerns.
  
  
• Adherence to Peer Review Conventions
  
• Authors must respect the peer review process by avoiding simultaneous submissions to multiple journals unless co-publication is agreed upon. Withdrawing a manuscript after peer review, or failing to address reviewer comments post-conditional acceptance, wastes editorial resources and delays knowledge dissemination.
• Press embargoes should be honored to align media coverage with publication timelines. Press releases must accurately represent findings without sensationalism, as misrepresentation can mislead policymakers and the public.
  
  
• Ethical Reporting Involving Humans or Animals
  Research involving humans or animals requires documented ethical approvals (e.g., IRB, animal care committee) and informed consent. Identifiable data should only be published with explicit participant permission, considering risks of unintended recognition in digital archives.
  
• Clinical trials must be prospectively registered, and results—positive or negative—must be published to prevent publication bias. Journals may request study protocols to verify adherence to pre-specified methods. Statistical analyses should follow pre-defined plans, with post hoc analyses clearly labeled as exploratory.
  
  
• Conclusion: Collective Responsibility for Integrity
  
• The guidelines underscore that research integrity is a shared duty. Institutions must train researchers in ethical standards, funders must avoid undue influence, and journals must enforce transparent policies. By adhering to these principles, the scholarly community can maintain public trust, foster collaboration, and advance knowledge responsibly.
  
  
• Click here for details on ethical committee approval information.
• For researches requiring ethical committee approval, information about the approval (committee name, date, and reference number) should be included in the methodology section and on one of the first or last pages of the article. In "case reports", the article should include a statement confirming that an informed voluntary consent form was signed.

For Reviewers

• Reviewers must evaluate the submitted manuscripts based on the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (Guidelines) and submit their assessments to the editorial board within the designated period. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers are summarized below. Please see original source for details.
• Peer reviewers should:
  
  
• Basic Principles:
• Only review manuscripts within their expertise and when they can do so promptly.
  
• Keep manuscript details confidential and not disclose them outside of the journal’s release.
  
• Avoid using review information for personal or organizational gain.
  
• Declare any conflicts of interest and seek advice if unsure.
  
• Be impartial, not influenced by the manuscript’s origin or author characteristics.
  
• Be objective, constructive, and refrain from personal attacks.
  
• Acknowledge peer review as reciprocal and commit to fair, timely reviews.
  
• Provide accurate professional information reflecting their expertise.
  
• Understand that impersonation during the review process is serious misconduct.
  
  
• Approaching to Review
• Respond promptly, especially if unable to review, without intentional delays.
  
• Declare if they lack subject expertise or can only review parts of the manuscript.
  
• Agree to review only if they can meet the proposed deadline, requesting extensions if necessary.
  
• Declare any potential conflicts of interest, seeking advice if unsure.
  
• Follow journal policies regarding conflicts, such as working at the same institution or having close personal ties with authors.
  
• Review any manuscript they've previously assessed for another journal, as it may have changed.
  
• Suggest alternative reviewers based on suitability, not personal bias.
  
• Not agree to review just to access the manuscript without reviewing it.
  
• Decline to review if they cannot provide a fair and unbiased evaluation.
  
• Decline if involved in the work or if the manuscript is too similar to their own.
  
• Decline if they disagree with the journal's peer-review model.
  
  
• During Review
• Notify the journal if they discover a conflict of interest or anything that prevents a fair, unbiased review.
  
• Avoid reviewing the manuscript while waiting for journal instructions on potential issues.
  
• Read the manuscript, supporting materials, and journal instructions carefully, asking for clarification or missing items.
  
• Inform the journal if they lack expertise to assess parts of the manuscript, without waiting until the review is due.
  
• Not involve others in the review without journal permission, and credit them appropriately.
  
• Keep all manuscript and review details confidential.
  
• Inform the journal if they can't meet the review deadline, providing a new estimate if needed.
  
• In double-blind reviews, notify the journal if they suspect author identities.
  
• Report any irregularities, ethical concerns, or potential misconduct to the journal, but keep concerns confidential.
  
• Avoid unnecessarily delaying the review process.
  
• Base reviews on the merits of the work, free from personal or financial biases.
  
• Not contact authors directly without journal permission.
  
  
• When Preparing Report
• Provide subject knowledge, good judgment, and a fair assessment of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses.
  
• Clearly state if they are reviewing specific parts of the manuscript.
  
• Follow journal instructions on required feedback and its organization.
  
• Be objective, constructive, and provide helpful feedback for improvement.
  
• Avoid personal comments or unfounded accusations.
  
• Be specific in criticisms and support claims with evidence and references.
  
• Respect the authors' style unless changes for clarity are needed.
  
• Be sensitive to language issues and phrase feedback respectfully.
  
• Clarify essential vs. optional additional investigations.
  
• Ensure their report is their own and reflects fairly on others.
  
• Avoid unfair negative comments or unjustified criticism of competitors.
  
• Ensure their comments to the editor align with those for the authors.
  
• Keep confidential comments to the editor respectful and truthful.
  
• Not suggest citing their own work for personal gain.
  
• Decide if they want to sign their review if allowed by the journal.
  
• Be transparent if reviewing a manuscript they are editing, without disguising it as anonymous.
  
  
• Post Review Expectations
• Keep manuscript details and review confidential.
  
• Respond promptly to journal requests related to their review.
  
• Inform the journal if new information affects their feedback.
  
• Review other reviewers' comments to better understand the topic and decision.
• Try to accommodate requests to review revisions or resubmissions.

For Editors

• Our journal endorses the guidelines in Wager & Kleinert (2011)* editors. The guidelines are summarized below. Please click here for details.
  
• *Kleinert S & Wager E (2011) Responsible research publication: international standards for editors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. Chapter 51 in: Mayer T & Steneck N (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp 317-28). (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7)
  
  
• Key Editorial Principles
  
• Accountability for Journal Content
  
  • Editors bear responsibility for all published content. They must implement rigorous procedures to ensure quality, address errors, and safeguard the integrity of the scholarly record. This includes issuing corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern when misconduct or significant errors are identified.
    
    
• Editorial Independence and Integrity
  
  • Separation from Commercial Influence: Editorial decisions must prioritize academic merit over commercial interests. Sponsored content (e.g., supplements) must undergo standard peer review, with sponsorship clearly disclosed. Advertisements must not influence editorial content.
  • Relationship with Publishers: Editorial independence should be contractually defined. Publishers must not interfere with content decisions unless there is evidence of gross misconduct.
  • Avoiding Metric Manipulation: Editors must not artificially inflate journal rankings (e.g., coercing citations). Decisions should remain grounded in scholarly value.
  • Price policy should not influence editorial decision making
    
    
• Confidentiality
  • Authors’ Material: Editors must protect the confidentiality of submissions, sharing details only with authorized reviewers or in cases of misconduct investigations.
  • Reviewer Anonymity: Reviewers’ identities should remain confidential unless they opt for open peer review. Exceptions apply in cases of alleged reviewer misconduct.
    
    
• General Editorial Policies
• Transparency and Honest Reporting
  
  • Authorship Standards: Journals must define authorship criteria, requiring significant contributions from all listed authors. Disputes should be resolved institutionally, with editors acting on finalized decisions.
  • Conflict of Interest (COI) Disclosure: Authors must declare financial/non-financial conflicts, and funding sources. Editors should reject submissions where undisclosed COIs undermine credibility.
  • Reporting Guidelines: Encourage adherence to field-specific standards (e.g., CONSORT for clinical trials) to enhance reproducibility. Screen for plagiarism, image manipulation, and redundant publication.
    
    
• Responding to Criticisms and Misconduct
  
  • Corrections and Retractions: Promptly correct honest errors. Retract invalid work with clear explanations, retaining retracted papers online but marked prominently.
    
  • Addressing Misconduct: Investigate allegations (e.g., fraud, plagiarism) by contacting authors and, if unresolved, involving institutions. Use COPE guidelines for retractions and expressions of concern.
    
  • Scholarly Debate: Foster constructive criticism via correspondence sections while distinguishing between scholarly critique and misconduct allegations.
    
    
• Ethical Research in Humans and Animals
  
  • Ethics Approval: Require documented ethics committee approval for human/animal studies. Reject ethically flawed work even if approved.
    
  • Informed Consent: Ensure explicit consent for participation in research and publication (e.g., case reports), with exceptions only for overriding public health interests.
    
  • Data Confidentiality: Protect patient identities and comply with data protection laws.
    
    
• Editorial Processes
  
• Peer Review Best Practices
  
  • Decision to Review: Reject submissions pre-review only for lack of relevance or quality, never based on author/institutional bias.
  • Reviewer Selection: Engage experts without conflicts of interest. Require COI declarations and monitor review quality/timeliness.
    
  • Reviewer Misconduct: Address breaches (e.g., confidentiality violations, plagiarism) through institutional channels.
    
    
• Fair Decision-Making
  
  • Transparent Processes: Clarify journal scope, submission guidelines, and handling of appeals. Final decisions rest with the editor-in-chief.
    
  • Editorial COIs: Exclude editors from decisions involving personal, institutional, or financial conflicts. Implement protocols for submissions by editors/board members.

For Publishers

• Full editorial independence must be ensured without external interference. Decisions should be based on academic values.
• Clear policies on submission, peer review, and publication should be defined. Conflicts of interest must be disclosed and managed.
• Plagiarism detection tools must be used. Data falsification, manipulation, and ghostwriting should be investigated.
• Intellectual property rights must be respected. Copyright policies should be clear, and Open Access licensing terms should be specified.
• Correction and retraction policies for ethical violations and errors should be established.
• Confidentiality of manuscripts, reviewer identities, and editorial communications must be maintained. Personal data should be protected.
• Advertising and sponsorship must not influence editorial decisions. Advertisements should be clearly stated.

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION ETHICS

Our journal adheres to national and international standards to prevent, detect, and manage violations of scientific research and publication ethics. In this context, the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Higher Education Institutions Directive on Scientific

Research and Publication Ethics serve as the foundation. Below, the definitions of ethical violations, their detection and handling processes, and complaint management are explained in detail.

Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Violations

Scientific research and publication ethics violations are serious breaches that undermine academic integrity and erode trust in scientific work. Our journal recognizes the following types of violations and maintains a zero-tolerance policy against them:

• Plagiarism: Presenting others' original ideas, methods, data, or works as one’s own without proper citation according to academic standards.
  
• Fabrication: Using non-existent or falsified data in scientific research.
  
• Falsification: Altering research data or records, falsely presenting unused devices or materials as used, or distorting results due to conflicts of interest.
  
• Duplicate Publication: Presenting a previously published work as a new publication for academic promotion or appointments.
  
• Salami Slicing: Fragmenting research findings into multiple publications in a way that compromises the integrity of the study.
  
• Unjust Authorship: Including individuals who made no significant contributions as authors, excluding contributors, altering author order without justification, or demanding authorship through influence.
  
• Failure to Acknowledge Support and Contributions: Not properly crediting individuals, institutions, or organizations that provided support during the research process.
  
• Unauthorized Use of Sources: Citing unpublished theses or studies as sources without the author's permission.
  
• Violation of Ethical Rules: Breaching ethical guidelines in research involving humans or animals, or disregarding patient rights.
  
• Breach of Confidentiality: Sharing information from a submitted manuscript under review with third parties without the author’s consent.
  
• Misuse of Resources: Using research funds, facilities, or equipment for unauthorized purposes.
  
• False Allegations of Ethical Violations: Making unfounded and deliberate accusations of ethical misconduct.
  
• Violation of Participant Rights: Collecting and publishing survey or attitude research data without obtaining informed consent from participants or necessary institutional permissions.
  
• Violation of Environmental and Animal Rights: Engaging in research practices that harm animal health or ecological balance.
  
• Conducting Research Without Permission: Performing research or experiments without obtaining the necessary institutional and legal approvals.
  
• Noncompliance with International Regulations: Conducting research that violates international agreements and regulations to which Turkey is a party.
  
• Failure to Fulfill the Duty of Disclosure: Not informing relevant parties about potential harmful consequences of research.
  
• Violation of Data and Information Security: Using data obtained from other individuals or institutions beyond the permitted scope or failing to comply with confidentiality rules.
  

Process for Identifying and Addressing Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Violations

Our journal adopts a proactive approach to uphold the integrity of academic publishing and implements the following processes to prevent, detect, and manage ethical violations:

• Preventive Measures: Editors and publishers take active measures to prevent misconduct such as plagiarism, data fabrication, and citation manipulation.
  
• Editorial Screening: Submitted manuscripts are checked using plagiarism detection software. Manuscripts with a similarity rate exceeding 20% are rejected.
  
• Independent Investigation: If misconduct is suspected, the editorial board initiates a neutral and confidential investigation.
  
• Expert Review: If necessary, independent experts or ethics committees are consulted for assessment.
  
• Interim Measures: The review or publication process of a manuscript may be suspended during an investigation.
  
• Correction or Retraction: If misconduct is confirmed, the manuscript is corrected, retracted, or an editorial note is published. Retractions are publicly announced on open-access platforms.
  
• Institutional Notification: In severe cases, the authors' affiliated institutions may be officially informed.
  
• Zero-Tolerance Policy: Our journal does not tolerate or knowingly permit research misconduct.
  
• Compliance with COPE Guidelines: All procedures are conducted in accordance with COPE principles and equivalent ethical standards.
  

Handling of Complaints and Ethical Misconduct Reports

Our journal is committed to addressing ethical misconduct reports and complaints in a transparent, prompt, and constructive manner. If readers, authors, or other stakeholders identify an error, ethical violation (e.g., plagiarism, fabrication), or an issue with the editorial process in a published article, the following procedure is followed:

• Reporting Method: Complaints must be submitted in writing via the official email address listed on the journal’s contact page. The report should clearly state the nature of the violation, article details, and any supporting evidence.
  
• Swift and Confidential Review: Complaints are reviewed promptly and confidentially by the editorial board. Complainant identities are not disclosed unless legally required.
  
• Notification to Authors: The concerned author(s) are informed of the allegations and given 14 business days to respond.
  
• Initial Response: An acknowledgment of receipt is sent within 7 business days. If further investigation is needed, the complainant is notified.
  
• Investigation Process: The complaint is evaluated based on COPE flowcharts. If necessary, independent reviewers or ethics experts are consulted.
  
• Outcome and Resolution: The investigation is ideally concluded within 4 weeks, and the complainant is informed. If the violation is confirmed, corrective actions such as retractions or editorial notes are taken. If the complaint is found baseless, the reasons are explained.
  
• Right to Appeal: If dissatisfied with the decision, the complainant may appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, and the editorial board will reassess the case before issuing a final decision.
  
• Contribution of Complaints: Complaints are viewed as an opportunity to improve the journal’s ethical and scientific standards and are addressed constructively.
  
• Public Notification: If a serious violation is confirmed, a public announcement is made on the journal’s website.

Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made significant contributions to the research, including its conception, design, execution, or interpretation. All contributors who meet the authorship criteria must be listed as authors, and their specific contributions should be clearly defined.

• Corresponding Author Responsibility: The corresponding author must ensure that all listed authors have approved the final manuscript and agreed to its submission.
• Authorship Changes: Any request for addition, removal, or change in the order of authors after submission must be approved by all co-authors and justified to the editorial board.
• Guest, Gift, and Ghost Authorship: The journal strictly prohibits authorship practices that do not meet legitimate academic standards.

Complaints and Appeals

Our journal provides a transparent process for handling complaints and appeals regarding editorial decisions, ethical misconduct, or conflicts of interest.

• Complaint Process: Complaints must be submitted in writing to the editorial office, specifying the nature of the complaint.
  
• Appeal Procedure: Authors who disagree with editorial decisions may submit a formal appeal, providing detailed justifications and new supporting evidence.
  
• Resolution Mechanism: Complaints and appeals will be reviewed by the editorial board and, if necessary, an independent ethics committee.
  

Conflicts of Interest / Competing Interests

All authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial or personal interests that could influence their work.

• Author Disclosure: Authors must declare conflicts of interest during manuscript submission.
  
• Reviewer and Editor Transparency: Editors and reviewers with potential conflicts should recuse themselves from handling a particular manuscript.
  
• Funding Transparency: Authors must disclose all sources of financial support for their research.
  

Data Sharing and Reproducibility

To promote transparency and reproducibility in research, our journal encourages authors to share their data and methodologies.

• Data Availability Statement: Authors should include a statement on data accessibility and, if applicable, provide links to public repositories.
  
• Replication Studies: We welcome replication studies that contribute to scientific discourse and verification.
  
• Ethical Use of Data: Authors must ensure that data collection and processing comply with legal and ethical guidelines.
  

Ethical Oversight

The journal upholds strict ethical oversight to maintain research integrity and prevent unethical practices.

• Human and Animal Research: Studies involving humans or animals must include ethical approval from recognized institutions and adhere to international guidelines.
  
• Ethics Committee Compliance: Authors should provide documentation of ethical approvals where applicable.
  
• Research Misconduct Handling: Cases of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism will be investigated and handled per COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
  

Intellectual Property and Copyright

We are committed to protecting intellectual property rights and ensuring proper attribution in academic publishing.

• Plagiarism Prevention: All submissions undergo plagiarism detection software screening.
  
• Copyright and Licensing: The journal follows Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) and requires authors to obtain necessary permissions for third-party content.
  
• Attribution and Fair Use: Proper citation of previous works and adherence to copyright laws are mandatory.
  

Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

The journal recognizes the importance of correcting and updating published content when necessary.

• Corrections and Retractions: Errors identified post-publication will be addressed through official correction notices or, in severe cases, retraction.
  
• Editorial Notices: The journal may issue statements regarding concerns about published works if ethical or methodological issues arise.
  
• Reader Comments and Feedback: Constructive post-publication discussions are encouraged through official communication channels.

ETHICAL COMMITTEE APPROVAL

• Ethical committee approval is not required for every article. However, it is mandatory for the following types of studies. Below are the regulations adopted by our journal from TRDizin.
  Studies Requiring Ethical Committee Approval
  

Ethical committee approval is required for the following types of research:

• Any research involving qualitative or quantitative approaches that collect data from participants through surveys, interviews, focus group studies, observations, experiments, or other communication techniques.
  
• The use of humans or animals (including materials and data) for experimental or other scientific purposes.
  
• Clinical research conducted on humans.
  
• Research conducted on animals.
  
• Retrospective studies conducted in accordance with personal data protection laws.
  
• Additionally:
  
• Case reports must include a statement confirming that an "Informed Consent Form" has been obtained.
  
• Permission must be obtained and stated for the use of others’ scales, surveys, and photographs.
  
• Compliance with copyright regulations for intellectual and artistic works must be stated.
  

Researchers Who Are Not Affiliated with a University

• Researchers who are not affiliated with a university can also apply to Ethical Committees in their respective regions.

ADVERTISING POLICY

• Our journal maintains a transparent and ethical approach to advertising to ensure that editorial decisions remain independent and free from commercial influence. Advertisements are accepted solely for placement on the back cover of journal.
• All advertisements must align with the academic and professional integrity of the journal’s scope, covering finance, banking, public finance, and economics. The acceptance of advertisements does not imply journal endorsement of the advertised products or services.
• Advertisements must be clearly distinguishable from editorial content. The journal reserves the right to review and reject any advertisement that is misleading, unethical, or inconsistent with its academic mission.
• Advertising revenue does not influence the peer review process, editorial decisions, or published content. Advertisers must comply with all relevant regulations and ethical standards.
  
• For inquiries regarding advertising opportunities, please contact the editorial office.

PUBLICATION POLICY

• Journal of Finance Letters (Maliye ve Finans Yazıları) s a scientific, double-blind peer-reviewed journal published by the Turkey Economic and Financial Research Foundation (TEMAR).
• The journal is published under a continuous publication model and structured into two issues per year (April and October).
• Journal of Finance Letters is the continuation of the Maliye Yazıları, which was first published in 1986.
• The journal covers studies in the fields of economics, public finance, and finance.
• The journal's primary publishing policy is to publish high-quality articles, writings, and translations that contribute to the literature, have original research value, and propose solutions to problems encountered in practice.
• Finance and Fiscal Studies adheres to the ethical guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in all publication processes.
• All submitted manuscripts are screened for plagiarism and AI-generated content. Manuscripts found to contain plagiarism, AI-generated text, fabricated data, data manipulation, or duplicate publication will be rejected.
• Manuscripts submitted for publication must not have been published or submitted elsewhere for publication.
  
• Editors evaluate manuscripts independently of the author's institutional affiliation, gender, or financial relationships.
  
• Articles that are within the scope of the journal and of high quality are evaluated by two experts in the field using a double-blind peer review method. If reviewers request revisions, the article will not be accepted for publication until the required changes are made.
• Accepted manuscripts are sent to authors for final review before publication; any uncorrected errors are the responsibility of the author(s).
  
• Authors must provide sufficient details about the datasets, codes, and analytical methods used in their studies and grant access to relevant parties upon request.
  
• The contact details of the journal editor and process tracking mechanisms are transparently shared.
  
• Authors are required to disclose any financial or personal conflicts of interest.
• In order to ensure editorial diversity, works by the same author are not published in consecutive issues.
• All content published in the journal is freely accessible under the Creative Commons (CC BY-NC 4.0) license.
• The journal's publication languages are Turkish and English. Turkish manuscripts must comply with the spelling and grammar rules of the Turkish Language Association Writing Guide.
  
• A donation specified in the 'Price Policy' section is received by the Turkish Economic and Financial Research (TEMAR) Foundation for submitted articles
• For aim and scope of the Journal please click here.
• For details of writing rules, please click here.
• For open access policy of the Journal, please click here.
• For open copyright policy of the Journal, please click here.
• For open repository policy of the Journal, please click here.
• For open plagiarism policy of the Journal, please click here.
• For detailed evaluation process of the Journal, please click here.
• Our journal is a member of Crossref.