For studies that require Ethics Committee permission (studies that require the application of questionnaires or scales, involving interviews and observations; studies that require permission to use documents, pictures, questionnaires, etc. developed by others), the necessary permissions from ethics committees or commissions must be obtained before the research is carried out, these must be stated in the content of the article and presented as an attachment. In the absence of these permissions, the publication will be returned to the author at the preliminary control stage.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Journal of Faculty of Education is committed to applying scientific publication ethics at the highest standards and to comply with the following principles of basic practices prepared within the framework of the recommendations and guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for journal editors.
- Manuscripts to be submitted to REFAD must not have been previously published, included in the publication programme or entered the evaluation stage for publication in another journal.
- REFAD adopts the standards set by COPE in the application of publication ethics. In this context, it refers to the publication ethics flowcharts (https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts) developed by COPE in cases of abuse or violation of publication ethics.
- REFAD guarantees the anonymity of authors, field editors and referees in the process of submitting manuscripts for peer review, in accordance with the double-blind review process it has adopted.
- Confidentiality of author information is the responsibility of the journal. However, this information may be shared in a possible investigation to investigate possible misconduct. REFAD defines its principles regarding possible misconduct within the framework of the guidelines established by COPE and shares them with its stakeholders on its website.
- It is not acceptable for REFAD to use parts of a text in more than one publication of the author, even if it is not specified. In such cases, the journal applies the relevant guidelines set by COPE.
- REFAD defends and observes freedom of expression under all circumstances. In addition, the journal considers all racist, sexist and discriminatory content as hate speech and uses its right to reject articles with such content without any process.
- In the event of a conflict of interest regarding an article, REFAD explicitly takes the side of intellectual and ethical standards and defines the ethical principles that authors, reviewers, the editor and the editorial board are obliged to follow.
- In the event of a conflict of interest, REFAD suspends the evaluation process of the manuscript until the uncertainty is resolved; in this context, the Journal has the authority to request Ethics Committee Permission, Interviewer Consent Forms and documents to be submitted from the applicant author.
- REFAD acts responsibly and sensitively in publishing corrections, explanations, apologies and retractions.
- The editors and publishers of the journal are obliged to follow legal advice in the event that duplications in an article, i.e. overlaps with another publication, violate intellectual property rights.
Copyright Regulation and Conflict of Interest Principle
- REFAD considers that potential conflicts of interest between its stakeholders would harm the ethics of scientific publication. The journal defines its obligations for all stakeholders in order to identify and prevent conflicts of interest.
- When applying for publication to REFAD, the author declares that he/she accepts the issues in the Copyright Transfer and Conflict of Interest Form.
Open Access Policy
- All contents of REFAD are provided free of charge to the reader or the organisation to which the reader belongs. Readers can read, download, copy, search and link to the full text of journal articles without permission from the publisher or author, except for commercial purposes.
- REFAD accepts the Open Access Principles outlined in the Budapest Open Access Initiative. The journal has signed the Budapest Open Access Initiative.
Principles Regarding Possible Allegations of Misconduct
- REFAD adopts COPE's ‘possible abuse’ measures against abuse and misuse. In this direction; the obligations of the publisher, editors, referees, editorial board and authors against possible abuse before, during and after publication are described in detail in the Publication Ethics Principles.
- In cases where the same study is sent to different publication organs, it aims to provide benefits such as comparing different versions of the same studies sent to different journals, comparing the explanations compiled from authors and investigators regarding the submitted study, cooperating and making efforts for investigation in cases of suspected misconduct, and acting together in studies against investigators/authors and/or their institutions.
- Considering the importance of confidentiality in the scientific publishing process, REFAD shares information about authors, field editors and referees only to prevent suspected misconduct in the research and to fulfil its obligation to respond to it.
- Journal editors should make initial enquiries before sharing information in suspicious cases. Information should only be shared if the author has not responded, if the response is inadequate, or if it is believed that more than one journal may be affected by possible misconduct.
- When necessary, information is shared only with field editors who are believed to have knowledge of the subject matter, and information shared is limited to factual content only.
- The editors undertake to protect the confidentiality of communications to the greatest extent possible.
Publisher
- The publisher is committed to the implementation of the journal's publication ethics principles by the relevant stakeholders, providing free and continuous open access to the journal content, archiving and protecting the publications.
- The publisher is obliged to take the necessary steps to clarify the situation in cases of suspected violations of scientific publication ethics such as misconduct, plagiarism, conflict of interest, copyright violations, text recycling.
Editorial Board
- REFAD's Editorial and Advisory Board meets at least twice a year.
- The members of the Editorial Board accept REFAD's editorial ethics principles and policies and evaluate decisions related to these principles and policies.
- They decide what REFAD's theme issues will be and who will be asked to be theme (or guest editor) editor for the relevant theme issue.
- They propose members for REFAD's Advisory Board.
- They make suggestions to increase the national and international recognition of REFAD.
- In cases of suspected violations of scientific publication ethics such as misconduct, plagiarism, conflict of interest, copyright violations, text recycling, they inform REFAD's editorial team to clarify the situation.
- They suggest a search index in which REFAD can be included in order to increase its academic quality.
Editors
- Articles submitted to REFAD are evaluated by the editors independently of the race, ethnicity, gender, world view and beliefs of the authors.
- Articles sent to REFAD are submitted to the evaluation of assistant editors determined by the editor. The deputy editor anonymously decides whether the article can be included in the refereeing process by taking into account the Editorial Preliminary Evaluation Form without knowing who the author is. The deputy editor may request corrections from the author at the editorial evaluation stage or make a proposal to the editor to reject the article without being included in the refereeing process.
- Referees make detailed and constructive evaluations of the manuscripts they evaluate.
- REFAD also includes articles such as evaluation articles, research notes, reviews, events, book and film reviews published without the need for peer review. In REFAD, the distinction between peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications is clearly stated. If necessary, the editor may make comments and suggestions about the category under which the submitted article can be published in the journal, and clearly share this with the author. In this case, the final decision belongs to the author and/or the editor.
- The editors, deputy editors, act with the responsibility of being the liaison person between the author and the referee for the articles that will enter the refereeing process. They carry out the refereeing process with academic courtesy from the date of receipt of the article to the publication stage, meticulously documenting each stage. Regarding the evaluation process, the editors do not hesitate to give an account of the evaluation steps for each article, if necessary (provided that the personal rights of the deputy editor, the author and the referee and the privacy principles of the journal are observed).
- In the event that two referees express different opinions on the manuscript under review, the editors will seek the judgement of a third referee.
- If any of the editors has a conflict of interest or a relationship that may cause a conflict of interest with the manuscripts submitted to the journal, they leave the decision whether to include the manuscript in the refereeing process and the follow-up of the publication process entirely to the deputy editors. Since the Field Editors evaluate the articles anonymously, any conflict of interest with the author is prevented. The editorial staff does not use any information obtained from the evaluated manuscript for personal gain.
- If the editors detect an error in a published article and if this error invalidates the study or important parts of it, if it contains plagiarism, if it is unethical, they withdraw the article in question. In this case, the editors are responsible for circulating a statement clearly stating that the article has been withdrawn and the reason for the withdrawal, with a link connecting the two versions of the journal, open to all readers on online platforms.
Authors
- Authors have academic, ethical and social responsibility.
- Authors cannot submit more than one article to the same issue of the journal.
- Article application dates must comply with the article application dates specified in the call text of the issue in preparation for publication. They are responsible for not evaluating the applications made after the application date.
- The author is responsible for not committing ethical violations such as plagiarism, theft of labour, improper referencing, forgetting references, not mentioning the names of scholarship and support institutions. If otherwise, the manuscript will be rejected.
- When authors submit a manuscript of any type or format, they are responsible for disclosing all financial and personal relationships that may bias or be found biased in the study. Within this framework, the authors who apply for the manuscript sign the Copyright Transfer and Conflict of Interest Declaration Form and upload it to the system.
They are responsible for the fact that the ideas and expressions in their works submitted for publication have not been used in other previously unpublished works. If these ideas and expressions have been used before, they must be cited where necessary. Otherwise, the authors are obliged to correct the conflicting parts upon the request of the editors or, if the article has been published, to do their part to publish a new correction.
The authors undertake that the manuscripts they submit to REFAD have not been published before, have not been included in the publication programme, or have not entered the evaluation stage for publication in another medium.
They should be accountable for the validity and ethics of each part of the study.
If there is more than one author contributing to the study, they are responsible for ensuring that the order of names submitted during the application is the result of a joint decision.
They are responsible for ensuring that only those who have active contributions to the study are included among the authors, that those who do not have active contributions are not included among the authors, and that any request for change in the author ranking or any change in the author ranking during the evaluation process of the manuscript is appropriately justified. The author has the obligation to provide explanations requested by the editors, if deemed necessary.
If they detect errors and omissions after the publication of their article, they should notify the journal editors immediately so that appropriate action can be taken.
They may not publish the same article, in whole or in part, in more than one journal without proper justification, permission or cross-reference. They are obliged to comply with the licence and copyright transfer agreement they have signed.
They accept that articles that cannot pass REFAD's pre-publication preparation stages -APA control and proofreading processes- will not be published even if the refereeing process is completed.
- When an offer of refereeing is made, he/she should respond positively or negatively within two weeks.
- If he/she has no expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript or is only able to evaluate part of it, he/she should explain this.
- Agree to review within the agreed timeframe, and inform in case of delay.
Referees
- Adopt the double-blind peer review process and fulfil the requirements of this process.
- When offered a review, respond positively or negatively within two weeks.
- Explain if they do not have expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript or if they are only able to evaluate part of the manuscript.
- Agree to evaluate the manuscript within the agreed time interval, and inform in case of delay.
- Disclose to the editors any conflict of interest that may bias their views on the manuscript and refrain from reviewing the manuscript if such a situation exists.
- Refuse to review a manuscript if it is very similar to a manuscript they are preparing or under review.
During Review;
- They should inform the journal when they realise that a conflict of interest arises that did not exist at the time of acceptance.
- Keep all manuscript and referee evaluations confidential.
- Guarantee that their evaluations are purely scientific and will not be favourably or unfavourably influenced by personal, financial or intellectual bias.
- Make no personal comments or unjustified accusations against the author.
- Be discriminating in their criticism, for example by concretising a general statement such as ‘a work that has been done before’; this will help editors to treat authors fairly in the evaluation and decision-making process.
- They should remember that the text they are reviewing is the work of the authors, and if the work is clearly written, they should not attempt to rewrite it in their own preferred form; however, suggestions to clarify wording are important.
- They should not communicate directly with authors without informing the journal.
- Recognise the sensitivities that may arise from writing in another language and express this respectfully and appropriately.
- They are responsible for informing the editors when they recognise recycling, also known as self-plagiarism, in manuscripts sent to them for review.
- They should not suggest citing their own work just to increase the number of citations by themselves/colleagues or to be visible. If a suggestion is made, it must be scientifically justified.
Post Evaluation;
- Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the evaluation process.
- Inform the journal if a situation arises that may affect the main comments and feedback.
- They should endeavour to respond to requests from the journal for correction and re-evaluation.
- Reviewers should not use any information in the manuscript that is of their own interest before the manuscript is published.
Plagiarism Review Policy
- Ethical violations such as plagiarism and theft of labour are considered unacceptable by REFAD and it is primarily the responsibility of the author(s) to prevent such violations in the submitted manuscripts.
-All manuscripts submitted to REFAD are subjected to Turnitin and iThenticate programmes and a similarity report is obtained before being included in the evaluation process.
- If the similarity rate is 15% and above as a result of the report, the editors share the relevant report result with the author and reject the manuscript without putting it into the evaluation process.
December 25, 2025
Page
1-11
