The publication process in the Ondokuz Mayıs Unıversity Review of the Faculty of Divinity (OMUIFD) constitutes to the development and distribution of knowledge objectively and in a respected way. For this reason, the applied processes are reflected on the quality of the writers’ and the quality of institutions works which support the authors. Reviewed articles reify and promote the scientific method. At this point, it is of importance for all the stakeholders of the process (writers, readers and researchers, publisher, reviewer and the editors) to be in accordance with standards about ethic principles. Ondokuz Mayıs Unıversity Review of the Faculty of Divinity (OMUIFD) expects all stakeholders to carry on the ethic responsibilities below within the context of publication ethics.
The ethical duty and responsibilities below were prepared by taking into consideration the guides and policies published by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as open access (See (COPE Yönerge Türkçe)
It is a building block for an article to be published in a refereed-journal which is necessary for the development of knowledge network that is agreeable and respected. This is the direct reflection of the quality of writers’ and their institutions’ studies. Reviewed articles reify and promote the scientific method. Therefore, it is important to reach an agreement about publication for all the stakeholders, the writer, journal’s editor, the reviewer and the publishing associations:
1. Autorship
· The bibliography must be complete.
· No place must be given for plagiarism and false data.
· The same study must not be tried to be published in more than one journal, rules of the scientific research and publication ethics must be obeyed.
Actions against the scientific research and publication ethics are:
a) Plagiarism: Presenting others’ ideas, methods, data, practices, writing, forms or studies partly or wholly without referencing to the owners according to scientific rules,
b) Forgery: Producing data that is not based on research, editing or changing the presented or published study by basing it on fictitious data, reporting or publishing these, showing an unmade research as if it were made,
c) Distortion: Falsifying the obtained data and the research records, showing the methods, devices and materials that were not used in the study as if they had been used, not taking the data that are not inappropriate to the research hypothesis into consideration, juggling with data and/or results to make them be appropriate to the related theory and presuppositions, falsifying or manipulating the research results in accordance with the advantages of the people and the institutions that support the researcher,
d) Dissection: Dissecting the results of a study in a way that would destroy the integrity of the study and inappropriately, and using these in associate professorship exam evaluations by making a lot of publications of them without referencing each other and presenting these as separate studies in academic promotions,
e) Undeserved authorship: Including those who don’t have an active contribution in authors, not including those who have an active contribution in authors, changing the ranking of authors without a reason and inappropriately, excluding the names of those with active contribution from the study during publication or in next publications, making one’s name included – by exerting influence – in authors despite having no active contribution,
f) Other types of violation of ethics: Not stating openly the people, institutions and organizations and their contributions to the study in the publication of the researches that are made by the support of those, not following the ethic rules in studies done on humans or animals, not respecting the rights of patients in the publications, reviewer’s sharing the knowledge in a study, which is to be reviewed, with others before it is published, using the sources, places, opportunities and devices, which are provided or kept for scientific researches, out of their purposes, accusing someone of violation of ethics in a baseless, injudicious and malicious way (YOK Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Guideline, Article 8)
2. Author’s Responsibilities
· All authors should considerably contribute to the study.
· The statement that all the data in the article is real and authentic is necessary.
· All the authors should ensure withdrawal and correction of mistakes
· Article written in the Arabic language will normally have an Arabic bibliography. It is also necessary to create a second bibliography by Latinizing this Arabic bibliography.
3. Reviewers’ Responsibilities
• The reviewer assessments are expected to be objective and critical.
• In case the reviewer answers the required clauses in the report positively or negatively, s/he must present both of them with justifications. The reviewer must certainly put forward “alternative suggestions” when s/he asks for correction or answers negatively.
• The authors are expected to make only a text-centered assessment, to avoid statements about the insufficiencies of the author/authors and not to use expressions that would destroy their reputations.
• The reviewer is expected not to answer the assessment criterion only as yes or no, to give details about the negative opinions and to state the justifications.
Moreover, the editor does not send assessments to the reviewers in these cases so far as possible:
• To the reviewers with whom the author/authors previously published collaborative work,
• To the reviewers who helped the author/authors in their pre-readings,
• To the reviewers with whom the author/authors are known to have problems previously,
• To the reviewers who would benefit financially from the publication of the study,
• To the reviewers who work in the same institution (the same department).
4. Editorial Responsibilities
· Editors have all the responsibility and authority to accept or decline an article.
· Editors should not be in a conflict of interest about the articles they accepted or declined.
· Only the articles that would contribute in the field should be accepted.
· Editors should side a publication for correction or withdrawal when mistakes are found.
· Editors must keep the names of the reviewers hidden and must prevent plagiarism/false data.
The review process is located in the centre of the success in scientific publication. It is a part of our promise to save and develop the review process. Ondokuz Mayıs Unıversity Review of the Faculty of Divinity (OMUIFD) has to help scientific community in every case that is about the scientific publication ethics, especially when there are doubtful, repeated publications or in cases of plagiarism.
A reader may file a report by sending an e-mail to omuifd@gmail.com when s/he finds a significant mistake or error in an article published in Ondokuz Mayıs Unıversity Review of the Faculty of Divinity (OMUIFD) or when s/he has a complaint about the editorial content (plagiarism, repeated articles etc.). Since complaints provide opportunities for our development, we take them kindly and we aim to give feedbacks that are quick and constructive.
5. Discovering Plagiarism
Articles sent to be published in the journal are assessed by at least two reviewers with two-sided blind review evaluation. Additionally, it is verified via a special program used for the detection of plagiarism that the articles were not published before or do not include plagiarism.
Publication Policy
• We publish only scientific research articles, book reviews, scientific meeting and symposium reviews in the field of Islamic Studies (Scope: Arts and Humanities/Religion/Islamic Studies & Scope: Social and Behavioral Sciences/ Theology and Ethics)
• In the research article, orijinal and unique articles which focusing on the classical and modern problems of the field or working at the analytical level in the theoretial or practical aspect or searching for answers to the current/ actual problems of the field will be given priority. In book presentations, it will be included in the form of book critique (review) rather than simple presentation. For the principles of book critique see. Editorial Preliminary Examination Form.
• Whether the articles sent to the journal are going to be published or not is decided in three months at the latest beginning from the deadlines, and then the owner of the study is informed.
• The articles that are decided to be published are accepted as a general principle to that issue of the journal according to the date of arrival; articles exceeding this number are transferred to the next issue.
• At most one study of an author can be published in an issue.
Fiscal Policy
• No copyright fee is paid to the author for the published articles.
• Article application fee is not charced from the author.
• No publishing fee is charged from the author.
Referee Process
• OMUIFD uses double-blind review fulfilled by at least three reviewers.
• Referee names are kept strictly confidential.
• Referee and author can not be from the same institution.
• The author does not know who the referees are, and referees do not know who the article belongs to.
• Editors, acknowledging that there may be conflicting interests between reviewers and other editors, guarantee that the publication process of the manuscripts will be completed in an independent and unbiased manner.
Publication Assessment Process
• Studies sent to Ondokuz Mayıs Unıversity Review of the Faculty of Divinity (OMUIFD) are assessed by the editors. The elements to be taken into consideration by the editors are stated in the Editorial Preliminary Examination Form. See Editorial Preliminary Examination Form.
• Studies which passed the preliminary examination are sent to two reviewers, who are the experts of that field and who are the determined by the editorial board. When positive reports are made by both of the reviewers, the study is decided to be published and the owner of the study is informed about in which issue it is going to be published. The study is not published when both of the reviewers opine negatively. In case one positive and one negative opinions are presented, by taking the content of the reports into consideration, it is decided to send the study to a third reviewer or to decline it by the Editorial Board.
• In the reviewer reports of the studies sent; a. If the opinion “it can be published” is expressed, the study is published in the relevant issue. b. If the opinion “can be published after editing” is expressed, the study is returned to the author in order for the required proofreading to be done. The author makes the corrections in a different colour. After editing it is controlled by the editorial board whether or not the reviewer remarks were taken into consideration or not. If they are corrected the study is published, otherwise it is declined. c. If the opinion is “I want to see after the corrections”, the study is sent back to the author. After corrections, the study is presented to the reviewers. Following this process, the study is published paying regard to the reviewer reports. d. The author has the right of opposition to the reviewer report, provided that it is reasoned. The editorial board makes a decision on whether the study is to be published or not by examining the opposition report with the reviewer. e. If the opinion is “it cannot be published”, the study is not published.
June 30, 2022
Page
1-8