Articles submitted to SDE Academy Journal are evaluated through a double blind review process and published electronically with free access.
The following are the ethical responsibilities, roles and duties of the authors, journal editor, reviewers and publisher.

Author(s)
- Articles submitted to SDE Academy Journal must be original works in the field of social sciences and humanities.
- All sources used in the articles (authors, online pages, personal interviews, etc.) must be cited correctly and appropriately.
- It should be stated that the articles submitted to the journal have not been submitted to another journal and the Copyright Transfer Form should be filled in.
- Individuals who have not contributed intellectually to the article should not be listed as authors.
- Conflicts of interest regarding the submitted article should be stated and the reason should be explained.
- Authors should inform the editor and the editorial board when they detect an error in their manuscript and collaborate in the correction or retraction process.

Referees
All articles submitted to SDE Academy are evaluated through a double blind review process. Double blind reviewing means that the authors are kept confidential from the referees and the referees are kept confidential from the authors in order to ensure an unbiased, objective and independent evaluation process. Articles are sent to the reviewers for evaluation through the journal management system. The referees are required to fill out a form that includes the contribution of the article to the field of humanities and social sciences, their decision on whether the article is publishable or not, and the reasons for their decision. The ethical responsibilities and roles of the reviewers of SDE Academy are as follows:
- Reviewers are only required to review articles related to their areas of expertise.
- Reviewers are expected to agree to review articles that do not present conflicts of interest. Referees should inform the editor if they recognize any conflict of interest and refuse to referee the relevant article.
- Reviewers should evaluate the articles impartially and objectively.
- Reviewers are required to fill out the Referee Evaluation Form for the articles they evaluate, and are expected not to indicate their names on the forms in order not to damage the double blind review process. The referees are also required to state their decision on whether the manuscript is publishable or not and the reasons for their decision in this form.
- The style used by the referees in their suggestions should be polite, respectful and scientific. Reviewers should avoid offensive, disrespectful and subjective personal comments. When referees are found to have made such unscientific comments, they may be contacted by the editor or editorial board to revise and correct their comments.
- Reviewers are required to complete their reviews within the time given to them and are expected to abide by the ethical responsibilities outlined herein.

Editor
General Responsibilities
- The editor is obliged to make efforts to improve the quality of the journal and to contribute to its development.
- The editor needs to support the freedom of expression of the authors.
Relations with Readers
- The editor should ensure that sections of the journal where peer review is not required (letters to the editor, invited papers, conference announcements, etc.) are clearly indicated.


Relations with Reviewers
- The editor should ask the reviewers to evaluate the articles in accordance with their knowledge and expertise. Thus, it should be ensured that the articles are appropriately evaluated by experts in the field.
- The editor is obliged to require reviewers to declare that they have no conflicts of interest before evaluating an article.
- The editor should communicate all necessary information about the peer review process and what is expected of the reviewers to the reviewers.
- The editor should ensure that the peer review process is conducted in a double blind review process and should not disclose authors to reviewers and reviewers to authors.
- The editor should evaluate reviewers based on their timeliness and performance.
- The editor should maintain a database of reviewers and update the database according to the performance of the reviewers.
- The editor should remove reviewers from the reviewer list who make rude and unqualified comments or return late.
- The editor should constantly renew and expand the referee list according to the referees' areas of expertise.

Relations with Authors
- The editor should continuously update the publication and writing rules and the sample template to inform the authors of what is expected of them.
- The editor should evaluate the manuscripts submitted to the journal in terms of the journal's editorial guidelines, the importance and originality of the work, and if he/she decides to reject the manuscript during the initial submission process, he/she should clearly and impartially communicate the reasons to the authors. In this process, if it is decided that the manuscript needs to be revised in terms of grammar, punctuation and/or spelling rules (margins, proper referencing, etc.), the authors should be informed about this and given time to make the necessary corrections.
- Manuscripts should include the dates of submission and acceptance for publication.
- When authors request information about the status of their manuscripts, the authors should be informed about the status of their manuscripts in a way that does not disrupt the double blind review process.

Relations with the Editorial Board
- The editor should communicate the publication and writing rules to the new editorial board members and explain what is expected of them.
- The editor should communicate the most up-to-date version of the publication and editorial guidelines to the editorial board members.
- The editor should evaluate the members of the editorial board and select members who will actively participate in the development of the journal.
- The editor should inform the members of the editorial board about their roles and responsibilities as follows
- Supporting the development of the journal
- Writing reviews on their areas of expertise when asked to do so
- Reviewing and improving publication and writing rules
- To fulfill the necessary responsibilities in the operation of the journal
Publisher
Published by SDE Academy Journal.
The ethical responsibilities of the publisher are as follows:
- The publisher acknowledges that the decision-maker and the refereeing process in the process of publishing an article in SDE Academy Journal is the responsibility of the editor.
- The publisher provides open, electronic and free access to the journal on the journal's website.

Plagiarism and Unethical Behavior
All articles submitted to SDE Academy Journal are scanned by IThenticate (http://www.ithenticate.com/) or Turnitin (https://www.turnitin.com/) software program before being published. Articles with a similarity rate below 20% are accepted for publication. Manuscripts that exceed this rate are reviewed in detail and, if deemed necessary, are sent back to the authors for revision or correction, and if plagiarism or unethical behavior is detected, publication is rejected.
Some unethical behaviors are listed below:
- Citing people as authors who did not contribute intellectually to the study.
- Failure to acknowledge the intellectual contributors as authors.
- Failure to indicate if the article is derived from the author's master's/doctoral thesis or a project.
- Slicing, i.e. publishing more than one article from a single study.
- Failure to declare conflicts of interest regarding submitted articles.
- Deciphering the double blind review process.
Publication Evaluation Policy
The article submitted to SDE Academy Journal is evaluated by the Editorial Board in terms of the focus and scope of the Journal and its compliance with the Author Guidelines. If deemed appropriate, the article is sent anonymously to two referees. In case of one rejection and one acceptance or correction, the article is sent to the third referee. In the case of Correction with Severe Changes, it may be decided to reject the article. If deemed necessary, the Editorial Board may send the article to more referees. In line with the opinions of the referees, it is decided to publish the article directly or partially corrected or to reject it. The decision is notified to the author(s). In case a correction is requested, the corrected article must be uploaded again via DergiPark within 15 days at the latest. Corrected manuscripts that are not returned within the specified period will be accepted for re-evaluation in subsequent issues.