EDITORIAL POLICIES
The publication process at REP is the basis of the improvement and dissemination of information objectively and respectfully. Therefore, the procedures in this process improves the quality of the studies. Peer-reviewed studies are the ones that support and materialize the scientific method. At this point, it is of utmost importance that all parties included in the publication process (authors, readers and researchers, publisher, reviewers and editors) comply with the standards of ethical considerations. There is no submission fee for publishing in REP. Currently, there are no Author Processing Charges (APCs) required.
Peer Review Policy
REP operates a strictly blind peer review process in which the reviewer’s name is withheld from the author and, the author’s name from the reviewer. The reviewer may at their own discretion opt to reveal their name to the author in their review but our standard policy practice is for both identities to remain concealed. Should an article/manuscript be considered suitable for review, it is reviewed by two reviewers.
Editorial Procedure
All articles/manuscripts are initially reviewed by the Editor. Only those articles/manuscripts that meet the standards of the journal, and fit within its aims and scope, will be sent to expert reviewers. Authors of articles/manuscripts can expect a decision normally within three working days as to whether or not their article/manuscript will be sent to the reviewers or instead be rejected at this stage. Should the decision be to ‘desk reject’ it at this stage, authors can be assured of a supportive response which offers feedback that is constructive and helpful in nature. REP recognises that authors are keen to get a decision as soon as possible, and reviewers are asked to return their decisions to the Editor within four weeks so that the decision can be sent to authors within that timeframe.At that stage, authors get one of the four standard decisions, that is, ‘accept, as is’, ‘conditional accept, but minor changes are required’, ‘conditional accept, but major changes are required’ or ‘reject’.
Authorship
All parties who have made a substantive contribution to the article should be listed as authors. Principal authorship, authorship order, and other publication credits should be based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status. A student is usually listed as principal author on any multiple-authored publication that substantially derives from the student’s dissertation or thesis.
Acknowledgements
All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an acknowledgements section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, or a department chair who provided only general support.
Funding
REP requires all authors to acknowledge their funding in a consistent fashion under a separate heading.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
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
Protection of Research Participants
All investigators should ensure that the planning conductand reporting of human research are in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013 (www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinkiethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-humansubjects/). All authors should seek approval to conduct research from an independent local, regional, or national review body (e.g., ethics committee, institutional review board). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the local, regional, or national review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. Approval by a responsible review body does not preclude editors from forming their own judgment whether the conduct of the research was appropriate. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are de-identified, authors should provide assurance, and editors should so note, that such changes do not distort scientific meaning. The requirement for informed consent should be included in the journal’s instructions for authors. When informed consent has been obtained, it should be indicated in the published article.
Plagiarism
REP take issues of copyright infringement, plagiarism or other breaches of best practice in publication very seriously. We seek to protect the rights of our authors and we always investigate claims of plagiarism or misuse of published articles. Equally, we seek to protect the reputation of the journal against malpractice.
PUBLISHING POLICIES
In the scope of REP publishing ethics, all stakeholders are expected to carry out the following ethical responsibilities. The following ethical duties and responsibilities have been set up as open access, taking into account guidelines and policies published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). REP is committed to upholding the integrity of the academic record. We encourage authors to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics’ International Standardsfor Authors..
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
* Authors should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation.
* Authors should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarised, and has not been published elsewhere.
* Authors should strive to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others.
* Authors should take collective responsibility for submitted and published work.
* The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting.
* Authors bear the responsibility to inform the editor of the journal or publisher if they happen to notice a mistake in their study which is in early release or publication process and to cooperate with the editors during the correction or withdrawal process.
* During the review process of their manuscripts, author(s) may be asked to supply raw data. In such a case, author(s) should be ready to submit such data and information to the editorial and scientific boards.
* Author responsibilities given in a study (e.g.: adding an author, reordering of author names) whose review process has begun cannot be changed.
* Funding sources and relevant conflicts of interest should be disclosed.
* Appropriate approval, licensing or registration should be obtained before the research begins and details should be provided in the report (e.g. Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Committee approval, national licensing authorities for the use of animals).
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
* Reviewers should be objective and conduct the reviews with privacy.
* Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based only on scientific content, without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief, or political philosophy of the authors.
* Reviewers should only accept the studies related to their field.
* Reviewers dispose the manuscripts they have reviewed in accordance with the principle of confidentiality after the review process. Reviewers can use the final versions of the manuscripts they have reviewed only after publication.
* The review should aim to be constructive and polite and should not include offensive language.
* The submissions accepted for review should be processed within the specified timing and in compliance with the ethical principles.
* In the case of conflict of interests, the submission should be rejected and the editor-in-chief should be notified.
* The identity of the authors should be reached and the submissions of the authors whose identities are revealed should be rejected.
* No information related to the rejected submissions should be shared or made public.
Ethical Responsibilities of Editors
* All editors ensure the editorial independence. They should only evaluate manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy of the authors, or personal influences from association staff or volunteer leaders.
* Editors must provide a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles for publication. They should ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept confidential before publishing.
* Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication. They should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
* The editors should ensure the progress within the specified timing of the process.
* The editors should ensure that the processes are realized within the ethical principles.
Unethical Behaviour
Should you encounter any unethical act or content in REP apart from the ethical responsibilities listed above, please notify the journal by e-mail at editor.journalrep@gmail.com
ETHICS COMMITTEE APPROVAL
"Ethical committee approval document" is requested for the articles uploaded in February 2020. The following sample statement should be added to the end of the article (chapter before the references) to be uploaded to the journal:
"I declare that the research was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. There is no conflict of interest in the research. The study approved by Social and Humanities Research and Publication Ethics Committee of Necmettin Erbakan University. The authors received no financial support for the authorship, research, and/or publication of this article."
Plagiarism Policy
In accordance with its publishing policies, REP oblige each study that has undergone the "Blind Review Process" to be detected for plagiarism to protect the integrity of the study. Therefore, all manusicripts are detected for plagiarism.
The plagiarism detection is done by iThenticate software. Plagiarism ratio (excluding references) is at most 10%. Studies exceeding this ratio is rejected by the editors.
Copyright Policy
The manuscripts submitted to REP for publication should be original studies that were not published before or not submitted to anywhere else for publication.
Authors who submit their studies to REP should acknowledge that they have to transfer the copyright of their studies to journal REP. The editorial board of the journal is authorized to publish the study.
Those authors who will submit their studies to REP have to fill in the "Copyright Agreement Form". Wet signature is required. The signed form should be scanned and uploaded to the system via file upload option.
December 31, 2021
Page
132-146