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.