The Journal of
Russian Studies (RUSAD), which has adopted the principle of preventing
malpractices in the publication process, which it carries out in accordance
with academic and ethical standards with the understanding of producing,
developing and sharing information with an impartial and scientific method, has
adopted the principles determined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
in the publication process in order to ensure ethical standards. takes
international standards into account. Accordingly, this declaration has been
prepared on the basis of the "Code
of Conduct and Best-Prectice Guidelines for Journal Editors" and "Code of Conduct for Journal
Publishers" rules of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and accordingly the
publisher, editorial board, editor/editor The ethical responsibilities of
assistants and authors are determined as follows:
Duties and
Responsibilities of the Publisher
In cases of
alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism,
the Journal of Russian Studies (RUSAD) will take the necessary measures to
clarify the situation and replace the article in question. This will be done in
agreement with the editors of that issue.
The measures to be
taken include, but are not limited to, stating that there is a typographical
error, making an explanation, and in very serious cases, retracting the
article. Journal of Russian Studies (RUSAD) undertakes to take the necessary
measures to prevent the publication of articles containing academic misconduct.
The publisher is
committed to providing open access to the journal; It is therefore deemed to
have accepted the duty to make all parts of the published content permanently
and freely accessible to the academic community worldwide. The publisher does
not charge any material or moral fee for the processing and printing of the
articles during the application process. The publisher undertakes to make the
magazine content available continuously and free of charge.
The publishing
institution archives and protects online content using Lockss via Dergipark.
Duties and
Responsibilities of the Editorial Board
The Journal
Editorial Board and Editor(s)/Deputy Editors are responsible for the
publication process of each article applied to the Journal of Russian Studies
(RUSAD). Editorial Board; Ensures the determination and implementation of
journal policies such as publication, blind refereeing, evaluation process, and
ethical principles. The article's inclusion in the referee process by the
Editorial Board does not constitute a commitment to publication. Even if the
referee process is positive for publication, the decision of the Editorial
Board and Editors/Assistant Editors is required. The Editorial Board promotes
academic integrity. The Editorial Board ensures the originality of written
works by checking them through the iThenticate plagiarism prevention program
before publication. The Editorial Board is responsible for examining
allegations of plagiarism and abuse regarding published articles. For example,
if an author has plagiarized other works in his article, used copyright
material of third parties without permission when permission was required, or
with incomplete notification, the Editorial Board can take various actions,
including withdrawing the article, reporting the issue to the department head,
dean and/or relevant academic institutions at the institution where the author
works. reserves its rights.
Duties and
Responsibilities of the Editor
The editor
evaluates the publications sent to the journal by taking into account their
academic qualifications (the importance of the study and its contribution to
the field, originality, appropriateness of the findings and method, and clarity
of the language) and their suitability to the scope of the journal. Gender, sexual
orientation, ethnicity, religious belief, political opinion or institution are
not taken into consideration when evaluating publications. At the same time,
government policies or the policies of any outside institution are not taken
into account when evaluating a publication. The journal editor has full
authority to determine the entire content of the journal and when it will be
published.
The Journal of
Russian Studies (RUSAD) and its editor are obliged to evaluate publications
only in terms of their academic quality, that is, their importance in their
field, originality of the article, validity of the research and clarity of
language. The only criterion in evaluating a publication is its compliance with
the scope of the journal. Authors' race, gender, religious beliefs, political
philosophy and/or institution do not play a role in the decision-making
process.
The editor and the
publishing team cannot share any information about a submitted publication with
anyone other than the author(s), referees, assistant editors and the publisher.
The decision to interview the individuals mentioned rests solely with the
editor.
Editor and
editorial board members cannot use the information contained in studies in the
publication process (including their own studies and ongoing studies) for their
own benefit without the express consent of the author(s).
Editor; In cases
where there are conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative
or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions,
the author appoints another member of the editorial board to carry out the
preliminary review and evaluation stages of the publication(s).
The editor and
publisher send all studies submitted for publication to at least two referees
who are experts in their fields for evaluation. After the review process is
completed, the editor decides which works to publish, taking into account the
accuracy of the work in question, its importance to the researcher and readers,
referee reports and legal regulations such as defamation, copyright
infringement and plagiarism. While making this decision, the editor takes into
consideration the referee suggestions, the author's revision and the
explanations about the revision, and also consults the Editorial Board.
The editor,
together with the publisher, guarantees that any behavior reported to be
contrary to publication ethics will be examined, even if years have passed
since the date of publication. The journal editor follows COPE procedures in
such questionable cases. After the investigation, if it is proven that there
has been unethical behavior, it publishes a notification stating that there is
an error, inconsistency or misdirection regarding the relevant publication.
Duties and
Responsibilities of the Referees
Blind referee
processes directly affect the quality of academic publications. The evaluation
process is carried out on the principle of double-blind refereeing. Referees
cannot communicate directly with authors, evaluations and referee reports are
transmitted through the journal management system. In this process, evaluation
forms and referee reports are forwarded to the author(s) through the editor.
Double-blind peer review helps the editor make decisions in dialogue with the
authors. At the same time, writers have the opportunity to improve their work
by obtaining crucial information about their work.
A referee who
receives an invitation to referee must inform the editor as soon as possible
whether he/she will be able to referee the relevant study. The arbitration
process is maximum one (1) month.
Studies sent to
referees for evaluation should be considered confidential documents. Studies
should not be shown to others and their contents should not be discussed. When
necessary, referees may ask for advice from other colleagues, with the
permission of the editor. The editor can only grant this permission in case of
exceptional circumstances. The confidentiality rule also covers persons who
refuse to serve as arbitrators.
Personal criticism
should not be made towards the authors during the evaluation process.
Evaluations should be made objectively and in a way that contributes to the
development of the studies.
Referees are
obliged to notify the authors if there are quotations that are not specified as
citations in the study. Referees should pay particular attention to works that
are not cited in the field or to citations that overlap with similar works.
Reviewers should notify editors if they notice any publications that are
similar to any previously published work or information.
Reviewers should
not agree to review if they have any collaborative connection with any author,
company or institution whose work they are assigned to review, and should
inform the editors of the situation.
Referees cannot
use unpublished works or parts of works sent for evaluation in their own
studies without the written consent of the author(s). Information and ideas
obtained during the evaluation should be kept confidential by the referees and
should not be used for their own benefit. These rules also cover people who do
not accept the duty of referee.
Duties and
Responsibilities of Authors
In original
research studies, the author(s) must clearly state its importance and how the
study was conducted and present the results objectively. The study should be
described in detail in a way that will enable other researchers to conduct
similar studies, and the necessary resources that can be used should be
specified. Review articles must be accurate, objective and comprehensive, and
other subjective opinions must be clearly stated. Authors should not use
discriminatory language based on affiliations and identities such as gender,
race, language, belief, culture, class, age, opinion, group and sexual
orientation. Untrue or deliberately misreported statements constitute unethical
behavior and are unacceptable. Studies/articles must not violate the privacy
and intellectual property rights of a third party.
If authors are
asked for information or data regarding their articles during the evaluation
process, they must submit the requested information to the journal editorship.
Authors are responsible for implementing the correction suggestions of referees
and Editor(s)/Assistant Editors. If the author disagrees with the
recommendations of the referees or the Editor(s)/Deputy Editors, the author has
the right to notify the journal editorship with the justification. Authors must
submit their actions to the referee evaluation suggestions to the journal
editorship and referees by uploading them to the Dergipark system from the
Article Files > Response to Referee option.
Where necessary,
authors should keep their data accessible to other researchers (preferably
through an institutional or legal data repository or a data center) for at
least 10 years after the publication date of their work. However; Participants'
privacy must be protected and their legal rights regarding their personal
information must be taken into account.
Authors should
publish only their original work and appropriately cite the source and data
they use. They should also indicate other publications that were influential in
determining the quality of their work. There are different types of plagiarism:
passing off another researcher's work as one's own, copying part of another
researcher's work without attributing it to the work or using it in other words
as if it were one's own, or claiming the results of another study as one's own.
Any form of plagiarism, including improper transfers from the author's own
publications, is a very serious ethical problem. Plagiarism in any way is
against publishing ethics and is unacceptable. Each submitted article is
scanned for plagiarism using the iThenticate anti-plagiarism program. Articles
with a screening result of 20% or more are not accepted for publication. During
scanning, the article is not transferred to the iThenticate database. The
editor has the right to reject the article and/or request corrections if he
detects the slightest problem with plagiarism, even if the similarity report is
below 20%. The evaluation process of articles found to contain plagiarism is
stopped. If plagiarism is detected after publication, Editors and Deputy
Editors take appropriate action.
Articles
containing essentially the same study should not be published in more than one
journal or other publication. Therefore, authors should not send a study
previously published in another journal to another journal for evaluation.
Submitting an article to more than one journal at the same time is unethical
publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Authors should
indicate if an older version of the work/text has been published elsewhere. If
the study was compiled from a thesis or an unpublished scientific meeting
presentation, even if it is unpublished, this should be stated as a footnote on
the first page.
If certain
conditions are met, it may be possible to publish some articles (such as
clinical guidelines, translations) in several journals. Authors and editors of
relevant journals must agree that the work may be published in another journal.
The data and discussions of the study published in a second journal should be
the same as in the previously published journal. The journal in which the first
publication was published must be cited.
Authors are deemed
to have taken all responsibilities regarding the publication. For this reason,
only people who meet the criteria to be an author should be considered the
authors of the work. These criteria can be listed as follows:
a) Having made
significant contributions to the content, design, data collection process or
analysis/interpretation of the study,
b) Having
contributed intellectually to the creation and editing of the content
c) Having seen the
final version of the work, approved it and accepted its publication.
Authors are
responsible for acting in accordance with current copyright law principles.
Authors have the obligation to identify all persons who had a stake in their
work. They should indicate as co-authors individuals who have a significant
share in their work. A work cannot be published without the consent of all its
authors. Individuals who made significant contributions to the work (such as
writing, editing, and technical assistance) but do not meet the criteria for
authorship should not be listed as authors; These people should be included in
the "Acknowledgments" section after their written permission is
obtained. At this point, written permission is important. The corresponding
author must ensure that all authors who contributed to the work are included in
the author list and that these authors have seen the final version of the work
and approved that there is no harm in its publication.
Authors should
indicate at the earliest possible stage (usually by submitting a disclosure form
at the time of submission and adding a disclosure to the manuscript) that there
are no conflicts of interest that would affect the results of the study or
interpretations. Possible conflicts of interest; It may be financial, such as
grants, educational scholarships and other payments, membership, employment,
consultancy, share ownership, expert opinion allowances or patent-license
agreements, or it may be intangible, such as personal or professional
connections, memberships, work-related information or opinions. All financial
sources relevant to the study (including the grant number or other reference
number, if available) should be stated.
Authors must
appropriately state the sources they used in the study and the sources they
referenced when deciding on the nature of the study. Personally obtained
information (conversation, correspondence or conversations with third parties)
should not be used without written permission from the source. Authors should
not use personal documents, such as peer-review documents or grant
applications, without the written permission of their owners.
If the study
involves chemical substances or methods and equipment that will cause various
harms when used, these substances, methods and equipment should be clearly
stated in the article. Study; If the study involves subjects and guinea pigs,
the authors must ensure that all procedures performed in the study are in
accordance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and have received
the approval of the relevant committees/organizations. There should be a
statement about these in the article. Authors should also state that in studies
conducted on humans, the necessary permissions to work with subjects have been
obtained. Participants' privacy rights should not be violated.
Referee Review
Process
Authors are
obliged to participate in the peer review process and respond to the editor's
requests regarding raw data, explanations and ethical approval document,
patient consent and copyright permissions as soon as possible.
If the referees
decide to "correct and resubmit", authors must systematically make
all the corrections requested and resubmit their work before the deadline. In
cases where one referee expresses a positive opinion and the other expresses a
negative opinion, the article is sent to a third referee for review.
Fundamental Errors
in Published Works
It is primarily
the duty of the author(s) to find a significant error or inaccuracy in a
published work. If such a problem arises, the author(s) are obliged to
immediately notify the editor or publisher of the journal and cooperate with
the editor/publisher to correct the error (typocalypse) or withdraw the
publication. If the editor(s) or the publisher learn from a third party that
the work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, the authors are obliged to
immediately correct or retract the article or prove the accuracy of the work to
the journal editors. In such cases, the author is responsible for cooperating
with the journal editorship.
Notifying the
Editor of a Situation That Does Not Comply with Ethical Principles
If you encounter
any behavior that does not comply with the ethical principles regarding the
editor(s), referees, or authors, or a situation that violates the ethical
principles regarding an article that is in the evaluation process, in early
view, or published, please notify us via message to rusad.tr@gmail.com.