Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and pays regard to Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) on https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing

The subjects covered in the manuscripts submitted to the Journal for publication must be in accordance with the aim and scope of the Journal. Only those manuscripts approved by every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.

Changing the name of an author (omission, addition or order) in papers submitted to the Journal requires written permission of all declared authors.
Plagiarism, duplication, fraud authorship/denied authorship, research/data fabrication, salami slicing/salami publication, breaching of copyrights, prevailing conflict of interest are unethical behaviors. All manuscripts not in accordance with the accepted ethical standards will be removed from the publication. This also contains any possible malpractice discovered after the publication. 

Plagiarism

Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. If plagiarism/self-plagiarism will be found authors will be informed. Editors may resubmit manuscript for similarity check at any peer-review or production stage if required. High similarity scores may lead to rejection of a manuscript before and even after acceptance. Depending on the type of article and the percentage of similarity score taken from each article, the overall similarity score is generally expected to be less than 20%.

Double Blind Peer-Review

After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by the editors-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope. The editor provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles and hands over the papers matching the formal rules to at least two national/international referees for evaluation and gives green light for publication upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.

Research Ethics

  • Seatific adheres to the highest standards in research ethics and follows the principles of international research ethics as defined below. The authors are responsible for the compliance of the manuscripts with the ethical rules.
  • Principles of integrity, quality and ransparency should be sustained in designing the research, reviewing the design and conducting the research.
  • The research team and participants should be fully informed about the aim, methods, possible uses and requirements of the research and risks of participation in research.
  • The confidentiality of the information provided by the research participants and the confidentiality of the respondents should be ensured. The research should be designed to protect the autonomy and dignity of the participants.
  • Research participants should participate in the research voluntarily, not under any coercion.
  • Any possible harm to participants must be avoided. The research should be planned in such a way that the participants are not at risk.
  • The independence of research must be clear; and any conflict of interest or must be disclosed.
  • In experimental studies with human subjects, written informed consent of the participants who decide to participate in the research must be obtained. In the case of children and those under wardship or with confirmed insanity, legal custodian’s assent must be obtained.
  • If the study is to be carried out in any institution or organization, approval must be obtained from this institution or organization.
  • In studies with human subject, it must be noted in the method’s section of the manuscript that the informed consent of the participants and ethics committee approval from the institution where the study has been conducted have been obtained.

Author's Responsibilities

It is authors’ responsibility to ensure that the article is in accordance with scientific and ethical standards and rules. And authors must ensure that submitted work is original. They must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere or is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere, in any language. Applicable copyright laws and conventions must be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) must be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement. Any work or words of other authors, contributors, or sources must be appropriately credited and referenced.

All the authors of a submitted manuscript must have direct scientific and academic contribution to the manuscript. The author(s) of the original research articles is defined as a person who is significantly involved in “conceptualization and design of the study”, “collecting the data”, “analyzing the data”, “writing the manuscript”, “reviewing the manuscript with a critical perspective” and “planning/conducting the study of the manuscript and/or revising it”. Fund raising, data collection or supervision of the research group are not sufficient roles to be accepted as an author. The author(s) must meet all these criteria described above. The order of names in the author list of an article must be a co-decision and it must be indicated in the Copyright Agreement Form. The individuals who do not meet the authorship criteria but contributed to the study must take place in the acknowledgement section. Individuals providing technical support, assisting writing, providing a general support, providing material or financial support are examples to be indicated in acknowledgement section.

All authors must disclose all issues concerning financial relationship, conflict of interest, and competing interest that may potentially influence the results of the research or scientific judgment.

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published paper, it is the author’s obligation to promptly cooperate with the Editor-in-Chief to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.

Responsibility for the Editor and Reviewers

Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors. He/She provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles for publication and ensures that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential before publishing.

Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication. He/She must publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.

Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors and reviewers. Only he has the full authority to assign a reviewer and is responsible for final decision for publication of the manuscripts in the Journal.

Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders. Their judgments must be objective.

Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side.

A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. The anonymity of the referees must be ensured. In particular situations, the editor may share the review of one reviewer with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.

Statement of Peer Review Policies

Only those manuscripts approved by its every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.
Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by editor-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope.
The editor hands over the papers matching the formal rules to at least two national/international referees for evaluation and gives green light for publication upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.

Reviewers of Seatific Journal are chosen from among the experts on the subjects mentioned in the manuscripts. The reasons for their selection are due to their objectivity and scientific knowledge. All those who will make the assessments are informed about what Seatific Journal expects of them. Each of them is asked to fill in an evaluation form and, if necessary, to prepare a separate report. Persons who have a disagreement on the topic of a manuscript cannot evaluate it (for example, someone who has contributed to or collaborated with one of the authors, or who is unable to provide an objective opinion on the work; also an employee or competitor of an institution whose work is being reviewed, such as people with special political and ideological views). These people should contact the editorial board and state a possible difference of opinion/conflict of interest before the manuscript is submitted to the referee committee.

Reviews are expected to be professional, honest, courteous, punctual, and constructive. The essential elements required for a high-quality assessment are:

  • Reviewers should identify the weaknesses and strengths of the work organization and methodology and comment on them.
  • Reviewers should accurately and constructively criticize the author's ability to handle data (taking into account that data may be limited).
  • Reviewers should identify the strengths and weaknesses of the work as a written communication tool, regardless of its composition, methodology, results, and handling.
  • Reviewers should express their thoughts on whether the study has content that may raise ethical concerns or whether it has low scientific standards.
    Reviewers should provide helpful advice to the authors so that the work can be improved.
  • Reviewers' criticism should be constructive and professional towards the author.
  • The review should provide the editor with the correct perspective and content so that he or she can decide on acceptance (and/or revision) of the work (and/or revision).
  • Reviewers are expected to identify unused works and to use citations to indicate which elements of the work have been cited previously. Reviewers should also report striking similarities between the reviewed text and any work published in another journal or submitted to Seatific Journal.
  • Reviewers are sensitively expected not to contact the author directly. In many cases, the opinion of two experts will be sought; however, the views of these experts may not be the same as the final decision of the editor on the manuscript in question. Receiving advice from a reviewer, even partial, may give authors the wrong impression of the review process.

Peer Review Process

Only those manuscripts approved by its every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.
Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by Editor-in-Chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope. Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors and ensures a fair double-blind peer review of the selected manuscripts.
The selected manuscripts are sent to at least two national/international referees for evaluation and publication decision is given by Editor-in-Chief upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.
Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors and reviewers and is responsible for final decision for publication of the manuscripts in the Journal.
Reviewers’ judgments must be objective. Reviewers’ comments on the following aspects are expected while conducting the review.

  • Does the manuscript contain new and significant information?
  • Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the manuscript?
  • Is the problem significant and concisely stated?
  • Are the methods described comprehensively?
  • Are the interpretations and consclusions justified by the results?
  • Are adequate references made to other Works in the field?
  • Is the language acceptable?

Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side.
A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. The anonymity of the referees is important.

Author Policy

Manuscript submission means the work has not been previously published (except in summary form, as part of a published conference or any academic thesis, or as an electronic preprint); it has not been evaluated anywhere else for publication; It also means that all authors or the responsible authorities of the work have given their consent to the publication of the work in question, without express or public declaration, and if accepted, its copyright in English or another language such that it cannot be published elsewhere, including electronically, without the permission of the owner.

All articles submitted to Seatific Journal will be uploaded to iThenticate to check the similarity rate of the paper. The Seatific Journal Desk immediately rejects any articles with a similarity rate greater than 10%.

  • The average time of preliminary assessment is 10 days
  • The average time of reviews of manuscripts is 40 days:
  • The average time of an article published in an issue is 100 days.

Editor Policy

  • Seatific Journal asks its editors to write a short commentary on their views that could potentially be seen as influencing their unbiased assessment. Such transparency is a requirement of an ethical obligation to authors and readers, as well as an equal response to the expression of opinion expected from authors, reviewers, and reviewers. The editorial staff is expected to distance themselves from decision-making arrangements that could potentially introduce a disagreement. Editors' duties:
  • Publishing Decision
  • Impartiality
  • Security
  • Disagreements and Statement
  • Collaboration to take part in research

Data Access

All data on manuscripts must be available as supplementary files or stored in an external channel; they should also be made available upon request.

Changes in the Author Staff

Seatific Journal acknowledges the reorganization and addition or deletion of author names prior to publishing an accepted work. Before publishing the accepted work, requests such as adding, removing, or rearranging the names of the authors should be forwarded to Seatific Journal's Secretary by the corresponding author. This request should include:

The reason for adding, removing, or rearranging the name in question and the written consent of all authors separately (by e-mail, fax, or letter) stating that they agree with this addition, removal, or rearrangement. It should also include the approval of the author who is being added or removed in such cases.

Requests not originally sent by the corresponding author will be sent by Seatific Journal's Secretary directly to the author, who must follow the procedure outlined above. The following should be noted: (1) Seatific Journal's Secretary will notify the journal’s editorial board of such requests, and (2) publication of accepted work in the press will be frozen until consensus is reached on the authoring staff. After the work is published, requests to add, remove, or rearrange author names will no longer be considered.

Developing the Evaluation Process

Seatific Journal’s editors routinely review manuscripts for quality. Evaluation-attributed grading and other evaluator performance characteristics are periodically reviewed to ensure optimal efficiency for Seatific Journal. Performance measures such as review completion time should be used to review changes during processes that will contribute to the journal’s efficiency. Individual performances are kept confidential. Editors who do not contribute to the quality of Seatific Journal may be removed from the editorial board.

Privacy

Information and ideas gained as a referee during the evaluation process are kept confidential and may not be used advantageously in any way. As the application is a privileged notification, it is to be kept strictly confidential.

  • The application cannot be taken or copied by the evaluators. In addition, reviewers cannot share the work with their colleagues without the written permission of the editor.
  • Reviewers and editors cannot make professional or personal use of the data, interpretations, or topics in the work (unless directly related to the evaluation) or write editorials or commentaries on the work before its publication unless they have the implicit permission of the authors.
  • In case of any difference of opinion/conflict of interest, the evaluators should notify the editorial board.
  • Evaluators should notify Seatific Journal if they are unable to review any work, or if they can only do so with some delay.
  • Evaluators should objectively evaluate the quality of the work in question; make clear, unbiased, and constructive criticisms; and avoid personal criticism of the authors. There is no harm in letting the authors know/see the comments made by the referees. Therefore, the opinions of the referees should be clearly stated and supported so that the authors can understand the basis of the comments and evaluations.
  • Reviewers can easily report any violation to the editor if they suspect any and, at the same time, they should strictly not share the status with other parties unless they have been informed by Seatific Journal to do so.

Open Access Statement

The journal is an open access journal and all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Except for commercial purposes, users are allowed to read, download, copy, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
The open access articles in the journal are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.en)

Copyright Notice

Authors publishing with the journal retain the copyright to their work licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) and grant the Publisher non-exclusive commercial right to publish the work. CC BY-NC 4.0 license permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Seatific Journal