ETHICAL PRINCIPLES:

Our editorial ethics are based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practice for Journal Editors (Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), 2011).

Editors' responsibilities:

Editorial decisions;
The editor and editorial board are responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal will be published. The editor evaluates articles without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship or political philosophy. The decision will be based on the importance, originality and clarity of the article, and the validity of the work and its relevance to the scope of the journal. Existing legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism are also taken into account.

Confidentiality;
The editor and any editorial staff member may not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, prospective reviewers, other advisors, and the publisher.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest;
Unpublished material described in the submitted manuscript may not be used by the editor or editorial board members for their own research purposes without the express written permission of the author.

Responsibilities of reviewers:
During the review process, reviewers assist the editor and editorial board in making decisions and also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
If a reviewer concludes that he/she is unable to review the research in an article in a qualified manner within the time limit, he/she notifies the editor and withdraws from the review process.

Confidentiality;
Manuscripts submitted for review are treated as confidential documents. They are not shared or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor.

Objectivity standards;
Comments are made objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers clearly express their views with supporting arguments.

Recognition of sources;
Reviewers identify works not included in the reference section of the article. They indicate whether observations or arguments from relevant publications are consistent with the sources. Reviewers inform the editor of their personal views on the manuscript under review and any significant similarities or overlaps between the work and other published articles.

Disclosure and conflict of interest;
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review are kept confidential and not used for personal advantage or gain. Reviewers may not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or cooperative relationships with authors or institutions.

Duties of authors:

Reporting standards;
Authors of original research reports should present an objective discussion of the significance and precise results of the work performed. The underlying data must be correctly presented in the article. A paper should include sufficient details and references to allow others to reproduce the work. False or knowingly false statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data access and storage;
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study with the manuscript for editorial review and, if applicable, should prepare for the data to be made publicly available. In any case, authors should ensure accessibility to other authorized professionals for at least ten years after publication (preferably through an institutional or subject-based repository or other data center), provided that the confidentiality of participants can be maintained. Legal rights to proprietary data do not prevent publication.

Originality, plagiarism and acknowledgment of sources;
Authors shall only submit completely original work and/or cite other works as appropriate. Reference should also be made to other publications that are influential in determining the quality of the work reported.

Multiple or simultaneous publication;
In general, articles describing the same research should not be published in more than one journal. Submitting the same article to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Articles published elsewhere as copyrighted material should not be submitted. However, the submitting author(s) retain the rights to the published material under appropriate conditions. Publication of the work constitutes permission for others to copy, distribute, transmit, adapt and commercially exploit the work under the CC-BY license. [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/]

Authorship of the Article:
Authorship should be limited to those who made significant contributions to the design, execution or interpretation of the submitted work. All significant contributors should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author ensures that all contributing co-authors are included and that people not participating in the author list are not included. The corresponding author will also verify that all co-authors have approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest;
Authors are obliged to disclose the financial sources, collaborations and conflicts of interest they have used in reaching the conclusions and interpretations of their articles. All sources of financial support for project-based studies should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works;
When an author discovers a major error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, he/she is obliged to notify the journal editor or publisher immediately and to cooperate with the editor to withdraw the article or to correct it in the form of an erratum.

References;
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011, March 7). Code of Conduct and Best Practice for Journal Editors;
Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journaleditors_Mar11.pdf

PUBLICATION POLICY

Blind peer review is a method for ensuring that scientific publications are of the highest quality. Blind peer review is at the heart of good scientific publishing and is carried out by all reputable journals. Our reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the high standards of our journal and all manuscripts are subject to the blind review process outlined below.

Pre-Evaluation:
The pre-evaluation process consists of two stages. In the first stage, all articles submitted for review are subjected to a similarity check in the iThenticate program. Articles with a similarity rate of 20% or more are returned to the author(s). In the second stage, articles are checked for compliance with the journal's editorial rules and scope. Articles that pass these stages are included in the blind review process. The author(s) of the article rejected at the preliminary control stage are notified within 1 week.


Editorial Review:
The editor is responsible for deciding whether to accept the articles referred to him/her into the refereeing process or to reject them without entering the refereeing process. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are not sufficiently original, have serious conceptual and/or methodological flaws, have inadequate or poor English/Turkish language skills, or are outside the scope and purpose of the journal.

The author(s) of the manuscript(s) rejected at this stage will be notified within 10 days after the manuscript is accepted for review. For all articles rejected without review, the editor will provide feedback and, where possible, suggest other suitable outlets.

Manuscripts found suitable for the review process are sent to 2 referees who are experts in their field. The positive report of at least 2 referees is required for the article to be published. In case of need, it is at the discretion of the editor to apply to the 3rd referee.

Peer Review:
In the double blind peer review process, the information of both authors and reviewers is kept confidential. To allow for this process, authors should not include any direct or indirect identifying information in their manuscripts.

Beyond the need to remove names and institutional information from the title of the manuscript, there are other important adjustments that need to be made to ensure that the manuscript is properly prepared for double blind peer review. To assist in this process, some points to note are as follows;

Use the third person singular pronoun when referring to previous work by the author(s), e.g. “as previously mentioned (Anonymous, 2007)” instead of “as previously mentioned”

In the text, cite studies published by the author as follows (Anonymous, 2007). In the bibliography, the appropriate notation is as follows. (Anonymous, 2007, details omitted due to blind review).

If you have received project support or funding from any private or public institution or organization within the scope of the study, do not share any information about it. This information will be added at the layout stage if the manuscript is accepted.

Do not thank anyone in the article. This information will be added at the layout stage if the manuscript is accepted. Never use your name and credentials when naming the manuscript file, and make sure that your name is not mentioned in the document properties.

Our referee database is constantly updated and referees are randomly assigned based on their areas of expertise. The points we expect our referees to consider in the evaluation of the manuscript are as follows:


Originality and contribution to literature

Of potential interest to a wide range of social scientists and/or practitioners

Candidate for the attention of a wide readership

Comprehensive review of existing literature

Methodology, analysis and interpretation competence

A clear, concise, and fluent style of expression

Reviewers are asked to provide comments to authors without disclosing their identity. Reviewers are also given the option to make confidential comments to the editor. Comments to the author(s) are also visible to other reviewers.

Please note that language correction is not part of the blind review process. However, reviewers are encouraged to make suggestions to improve the language and style of the manuscripts.

In general, the refereeing process is completed within 2-3 months. If the referees' opinions contradict each other or if the referee report is delayed for any reason, another referee opinion will be obtained. If necessary, revised manuscripts may be sent back to the author(s) for further revision. Reviewers and/or the editor may request more than one revision, and additional reviewers may be invited to evaluate the manuscript at any time.

Final Review:
The final decision is made by the “Editorial Board” for all manuscripts that have been favorably evaluated by the referees and reached the publication stage. At this stage, the Editorial Board reviews the article again and checks whether the content of the article is compatible with the referees' decisions. Although the referee reports are positive, the Editorial Board may refrain from publishing the article if there is a force majeure that the scope and rules of the journal have been violated. In this case, the decision is communicated to the author(s) together with the referees' recommendations.