For Editors

1. The Editor-in-Chief decides on the suitability of submissions for the journal concept and whether they will be published. In making this decision, the Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts based on their compliance with the journal's publication policy, originality, and importance, without regard to the authors' race, gender, religious belief, nationality, or political philosophy.

2. The Editor-in-Chief may assign a Section Editor during the evaluation phase. The Section Editor fulfills the necessary obligations by adopting the responsibilities listed above.
3. The Editor-in-Chief and Section Editors must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to third parties (reviewers, scientific board members, publishers, etc.) other than the appropriate designated individuals.
4. The Editor-in-Chief, Section Editors, and reviewers cannot use the information and documents contained in rejected manuscripts or manuscripts currently under review for their own research without the written consent of the author.
5. In cases where authors declare a conflict of interest during submission, the Editor-in-Chief and Section Editors manage the process by taking this declaration into account.
6. The Editor-in-Chief and Section Editors ensure that the peer-review process is fair, unbiased, and timely.
7. Research articles submitted to the journal are typically reviewed by two external and independent reviewers appointed by the Section Editors. When necessary, the opinion of a third reviewer is sought. Additionally, the Editor-in-Chief and Section Editors may provide constructive comments to improve the article and request revisions from the author.
8. The Editor-in-Chief and Section Editors ensure the selection of reviewers who possess appropriate expertise in the relevant field.
9. The Editor-in-Chief and Section Editors examine all disclosures regarding potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation by reviewers to determine if there is any potential for bias.
10. The Editor-in-Chief and Section Editors ensure that reviewers and authors clearly understand what is expected of them within the framework of the journal’s publication policies.
11. The Editor-in-Chief and Section Editors may remove inappropriate comments/citations from reviewer reports before sharing them with the authors.
12. The Editor-in-Chief and Section Editors maintain the confidentiality of all files submitted by the author and all communications with reviewers. In this context, editors do not use the content of a submitted manuscript for their own research without the explicit written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review are kept confidential.
13. The Editor-in-Chief and Section Editors, in conjunction with the publisher when necessary, may review and evaluate reported or suspected misconduct.
14. The Editor-in-Chief and Section Editors appropriately use the necessary digital tools/systems to detect unethical misconduct, such as plagiarism.

For Reviewers

1. Reviewers assist the editorial board and the Editor/Section Editor in checking the suitability of the submission for publication.
2. When evaluating a submitted work, the reviewer checks whether it falls within their field of expertise; if it is not suitable, they must withdraw from the review process.
3. Reviewers strive to be fair, impartial, and constructive in order to contribute to the scientific world through the work they review.
4. Reviewers provide suggestions to authors for the improvement of submissions and the elimination of potential errors.
5. Reviewers must inform the Editor/Section Editor if they feel unqualified to review the submission or if they anticipate that they will be unable to complete the review on time.
6. Reviewers are obliged to ensure the security of the information and ideas contained in the submissions. They must strictly not share these with third parties or use them in their own research.
7. In addition to the scientific evaluation of the article, reviewers must also pay attention to potential ethical issues in the manuscript. They bring points they deem necessary to the attention of the Editor/Section Editor.
8. Reviewers are expected to use a language and style in their reports that they would wish to be used towards themselves. Hostile, rude, and conflict-oriented language is strictly discouraged.
9. Reviewers should always conduct reviews objectively; they should express their views clearly with supporting arguments rather than engaging in personal criticism of the author.
10. If a reviewer senses a potential bias or conflict of interest before accepting to review an article, they must inform the Editor and recuse themselves from the assignment.
11. Reviewers may suggest new sources for the improvement of the manuscript they are reviewing, but they cannot do this directly for the purpose of citing their own (or their colleagues') work. A complete and valid justification is expected for such suggestions.
12. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from using generative AI and AI-supported technologies during the peer-review process. They cannot have AI tools perform the evaluation.
13. Reviewers cannot use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript in their own research. They are responsible for keeping privileged information obtained during the review process confidential.

For Authors

1. Studies based on fraudulent or fabricated data are unacceptable. Author(s) must guarantee the accuracy and originality of the data.
2. If the study involves data collection from human subjects, necessary permissions from participants (informed consent) and "Ethics Committee Approval" from appropriate institutional authorities must be obtained. This approval must be stated in the "Methods" section of the article, and the signed "Ethics Committee Approval" document must be uploaded to the system along with the manuscript. If the study does not require "Ethics Committee Approval," this situation must be explicitly stated in the "Methods" section.
3. Written permission must be obtained from the relevant institutions or individuals for "data collection tools, tables, graphics, maps, and other visuals" used in the study that belong to third parties and are subject to copyright.
4. The conditions stated in the "submission checklist" during the article submission process and accepted by the corresponding author are deemed accepted by the other author(s). Therefore, authors are expected to carefully evaluate the author list and order before submitting their articles and to enter the definitive author(s) into the system during submission.
5. All author(s) who have made a significant contribution to the research and writing stages of the article must be included as "co-authors." It is not appropriate to include individuals who have not contributed in the co-author list.
6. Author(s) agree to make reasonable revisions suggested by the journal's reviewers and editors. If the author refuses to make revisions without acceptable reasons, the submitted article will be rejected.
7. Author(s) are required to correct every error in the submitted article and retract incorrect information. It is the obligation of the author(s) to cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the article if deemed necessary by the editor.
8. In addition to the article, author(s) must also submit the copyright transfer form.
9. Author(s) must ensure that the article contains sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Author(s) must avoid excessive and inappropriate citation of the works they have utilized. They must not enter into prohibited agreements to similarly cite other authors' works (citation manipulation).
10. Author(s) must always appropriately cite the works of others. Information obtained from conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties cannot be used without the explicit and written permission of the source.
11. When deemed necessary, author(s) may be requested to provide the research data supporting their articles for editorial review. Author(s) are expected to provide public access to the article data or retain it for at least two years after publication.
12. Plagiarism occurs in many forms; it is unethical behavior in all its forms and is unacceptable.
13. Author(s) cannot submit the same article or articles describing the same research to more than one journal simultaneously. This is unethical behavior and is unacceptable.
14. If an Editor/Section Editor or reviewer suggests that the author cite their own work and this is not based on genuine scientific grounds, it constitutes an ethical issue. If author(s) suspect that a citation violating this policy is being suggested (especially if suggested by a reviewer), they should inform the editor or contact centers providing support regarding journal indexes.
15. Author(s) take full responsibility for the work. Even if an individual author indicates they only contributed to a specific part of the work, they cannot be absolved of this responsibility.
16. During submission, all author(s) must disclose relationships with individuals or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) the evaluation process of their work. This must be reported before an editor is assigned and whenever new conflicts arise. The publisher publishes these notifications if deemed necessary.
17. All financial or other support provided during the research and article writing processes must be explicitly stated in the relevant section of the article.

Source:
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011, March 7). Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Access: http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf