ETHICAL PRINCIPLES AND PUBLICATION POLICY [English]
The publication processes applied by the Temaşa Philosophy Journal form the basis for the impartial and reputable development and dissemination of knowledge. The processes implemented in this regard are directly reflected in the quality of the work produced by authors and the institutions supporting them. Peer-reviewed works are those that embody and support the scientific method. In this regard, it is imperative that all stakeholders in the process (authors, readers and researchers, the publisher, referees and editors) adhere to the standards set out in the ethical principles. In accordance with the principles of publication ethics, Temaşa Philosophy Journal demands that all relevant parties adhere to the following ethical obligations.
The ethical duties and responsibilities set out below have been prepared in accordance with the guidelines and policies published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) regarding open access. COPE Workflow Diagrams.
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal constitutes a pivotal element in the development of a coherent and respected knowledge network. This is a direct reflection of the quality of the work carried out by authors and the institutions supporting them. Peer-reviewed articles have been shown to both support and shape the development of scientific methods (Jones, 2019). It is therefore imperative for all parties involved in the publication process—authors, journal editors, reviewers and publishing organisations—to agree on standards of expected ethical behaviour:
Statement on Publication Ethics
Corrections, Retractions, Expressions of Concern
In the event that minor errors are identified in a published article, which do not affect the findings, interpretations or conclusions, editors may consider the implementation of a correction. It is incumbent upon editors to consider retracting an article in the event of significant errors or breaches that invalidate the findings and conclusions. In instances where there is evidence of research or publication misconduct on the part of the authors; where there is evidence that the findings are unreliable and the authors' institutions have not investigated the matter; or where a potential investigation appears to be unfair or inconclusive, editors should consider publishing a statement of concern. The Corrections, Retractions and Statements of Concern (COPE) guidelines are taken into account in this regard.
Article Review Process
1. Uploading the Article to the Journal’s System
The author (or the corresponding author, in the event of multiple authors) is responsible for uploading the article via Dergipark and entering the authors' details into the system as part of the review process. It is imperative to note that articles submitted to the journal via any means other than Dergipark will not be considered for the review process under any circumstances.
2. Editorial Board Preliminary Assessment
The manuscript's format is then assessed by the Secretary in accordance with the journal's Style Guidelines, in order to ascertain that it meets the journal's requirements. Manuscripts found to be non-compliant may be rejected. At this stage, manuscripts are not subject to any criteria other than those mentioned.
3. Editor’s Preliminary Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief and the Editor are responsible for determining the relevance of the manuscript to the scope of the journal, as well as its originality and innovation. Should the editors determine that the submitted manuscript does not align with the journal's scope, they reserve the right to either reject it without undergoing the peer-review process or to discontinue the review process at any stage.
4. Invitation to Reviewers
The editor is responsible for sending invitations to reviewers who have been selected based on their areas of expertise. The prevailing policy is to ensure that manuscripts are reviewed by a minimum of two reviewers. However, in the event of conflicting opinions amongst the reviewers regarding a manuscript, the chief editor may invite a greater number of reviewers. For a manuscript to be considered for publication, it is necessary for it to receive favourable reports from at least two reviewers.
5. Responses to Invitations
The decision to accept or decline invitations is at the discretion of the invited referee, with considerations including the scope of their areas of expertise and their current workload. However, it is considered of significant importance that referees who are unable to accept an invitation or contribute directly to the publication process should contribute to the review process by recommending other suitable referees.
6. The Manuscript Review Process
The manuscript review process is comprised of two stages: initial review and detailed review. Should the referees identify significant issues with the content of the manuscript or the presentation of its philosophical views, they reserve the right to reject the manuscript without proceeding to the detailed analysis stage. However, should the referees form a positive opinion of the manuscript at the conclusion of the initial stage, the manuscript will proceed to the second stage, during which it will undergo a detailed analysis. During this process, the referees are expected to share their views on the manuscript and highlight any necessary points for the author's attention. Upon completion of the process, the referees are required to submit one of three recommendations to the editorial board. The process of publication is subject to three possible outcomes: acceptance, rejection, or resubmission following the completion of revisions.
7. The Editor-in-Chief’s Final Assessment
Prior to reaching a definitive conclusion, the Editor-in-Chief meticulously reviews all assessments submitted by the referees. Should the reports of the referees exhibit significant discrepancy, the Editor-in-Chief may elect to refer the manuscript to an additional referee, with a view to reaching a definitive decision.
8. Notifying the Author of the Editor’s Decision
The editor is responsible for sending a decision letter to the author, informing them of the final decision regarding the manuscript. The editor will also include the reviewers' reports and comments on the manuscript in this decision letter. In accordance with the academic and ethical principles that underpin the double-blind peer-review process, the identities of the reviewers are never disclosed to the author, and the author's identity is not disclosed to the reviewers.
9. Next Steps
Should a decision be taken at the conclusion of the aforementioned process to proceed with the publication of the manuscript, the responsibility of the editorial board is to prepare it for publication. In the event that the manuscript has been returned to the author for revision and re-upload to the system, the author is required to upload the final version of the manuscript to the system, incorporating the requested revisions and any of their own amendments. In order to prevent delays in the review and publication process, the author is expected to upload the final revised version to the system as soon as possible. Following a thorough evaluation by the referees, the paper will be categorised into one of the following publication decisions: The process may be summarised as follows: the subject will either accept or reject the proposal. In the absence of significant changes requested by the authors, the editor-in-chief may elect not to request a re-review of the manuscript by the referees. Subsequent to this stage, a decision is made to publish a number of manuscripts deemed appropriate by the editor-in-chief and the editorial board (whilst reserving the right not to publish the final version of the manuscript).
Plagiarism Policy
The Temaşa Philosophy Journal has adopted a zero-tolerance policy on plagiarism. Prior to the initiation of the review process, it is incumbent upon the author(s) to upload a plagiarism report for their article to the system. This report is to be generated by plagiarism detection software such as 'iThenticate' or 'Turnitin'. The review process will commence once the manuscript and the plagiarism report have been uploaded to the system. It is imperative to ensure that the rate of plagiarism in submitted manuscripts does not exceed 25 per cent. Manuscripts with a plagiarism rate exceeding 25 per cent will be rejected, or the author will be asked to revise the work.
The onus is on the authors to verify the originality of articles submitted to the Temaşa Philosophy Journal. It is imperative to note that articles found to be non-compliant with research and publication ethics, or those identified as posing a risk of plagiarism, will under no circumstances be considered for evaluation.
The onus is on the authors of works published in the journal to ensure that the scientific and linguistic quality of these works is commensurate with the standards expected by the Temaşa Philosophy Journal. The Editorial Board, the Publications Committee and the Secretariat cannot be held liable in this regard. The ethical and legal responsibility for the works is that of the author(s). It is assumed that all authors submitting articles have accepted the aforementioned rules.
The onus is on authors to ensure the originality of articles submitted to the Temaşa Philosophy Journal. The journal's editorial team may also use plagiarism detection software, either on the recommendation of referees or on its own initiative, to verify the originality of an article. It is imperative to note that articles found to be in breach of research and publication ethics, or those identified as posing a risk of plagiarism, will under no circumstances be considered for review.
1. Authorship
· The reference list must be complete.
· Plagiarism and fabricated data must not be included. Articles with a similarity rate of 25 per cent or higher following a plagiarism check will be REJECTED outright in accordance with the journal’s publication policy.
· Attempts to publish the same research in more than one journal must not be made; authors must adhere to scientific research and publication ethics.
· Articles not prepared in accordance with the Chicago 7th Edition style guide will be rejected outright at the Preliminary Review Stage.
· If an article is included in the Preliminary Review process and the issues raised with the author are not rectified, the article will be rejected.
Acts contrary to the ethics of scientific research and publication are as follows:
a) Plagiarism: Presenting the ideas, methods, data, applications, writings, figures or works of others, in whole or in part, as one’s own without citing the original authors in accordance with scientific standards,
b) Fabrication: Generating data not based on research; manipulating or altering a submitted or published work by basing it on false data; reporting or publishing such data; or presenting research that has not been carried out as if it had been,
c) Falsification: Tampering with research records and the data obtained; presenting methods, equipment and materials not used in the research as if they had been used; excluding data that do not support the research hypothesis from the analysis; manipulating data and/or results to fit relevant theories or assumptions; or distorting or shaping research results in line with the interests of individuals or organisations providing support,
ç) Duplicate publication: Submitting more than one work containing the same research findings as separate works in associate professorship examination assessments and academic promotions,
d) Salami slicing: Presenting the results of a single piece of research as separate works in associate professorship examination assessments and academic promotions by dividing them into parts in an inappropriate manner that compromises the integrity of the research and publishing numerous articles without citing one another,
e) Unjustified authorship: Including individuals who have made no active contribution amongst the authors; failing to include individuals who have made an active contribution amongst the authors; altering the order of authorship in an unjustified and inappropriate manner; removing the names of those who have made an active contribution from the work at the time of publication or in subsequent editions; or using one’s influence to have one’s name included amongst the authors despite having made no active contribution,
f) Other types of ethical violations: Failing to clearly state the individuals, institutions or organisations providing support, and their contributions to the research, in publications of research carried out with such support; failing to comply with ethical rules in research involving humans and animals; failing to respect patients’ rights in publications; disclosing information contained in a manuscript assigned for peer review to others prior to publication; misusing resources, premises, facilities and equipment provided or allocated for scientific research; making entirely unfounded, baseless and deliberate allegations of ethical violations (Council of Higher Education (YÖK) Guidelines on Scientific Research and Publication Ethics, Article 8).
2. Authors’ Responsibilities
· All authors must have made a significant contribution to the research.
· A declaration must be made that all data in the article are accurate and original.
· All authors are obliged to ensure the retraction of the article and the correction of any errors.
3. Reviewers’ Responsibilities
· Reviews must be impartial.
· Reviewers must not have any conflict of interest with the research, the authors and/or the research funders.
· Reviewers must identify relevant published works that have not been cited.
· Manuscripts under review must be kept confidential.
Reviewers play a vital role in assisting editors with editorial decisions and in helping authors to improve their manuscripts. Reviewers are expected to complete their review of a manuscript within a maximum period of one month. If a reviewer is unable to comply with this rule, they must inform the editor and withdraw from the review process. Reviews must be conducted objectively, and reviewers must clearly express their views, supported by sound arguments.
4. Editorial Responsibilities
· Editors have full responsibility and authority to accept or reject a manuscript.
· Editors must not have any conflict of interest regarding the manuscripts they accept or reject.
· Only manuscripts that contribute to the field should be accepted.
· They should support the publication of corrections or the retraction of articles where errors are found.
· They must keep the names of reviewers confidential and prevent plagiarism and fabrication of data.
Detecting Plagiarism
Submitted articles to the Temaşa Philosophy Journal are subjected to a double-blind peer review process by a minimum of two referees. Additionally, specialised software is employed to verify that the articles have not been previously published and do not contain any instances of plagiarism.
The peer-review process is of paramount importance to the success of scientific publication. The safeguarding and improvement of the peer-review process is an integral component of our commitment, and Temaşa Philosophy Journal is obligated to provide assistance to the scientific community in all matters pertaining to publication ethics. This obligation is particularly pronounced in instances of suspected or duplicate publications, as well as cases of plagiarism.
Should a reader identify a significant error or inaccuracy in an article published in the Temaşa Philosophy Journal, or have any other request or complaint regarding editorial content (such as plagiarism or duplicate publications), they should submit a complaint to the following address: email: arslan_topakkaya@hotmail.com. Such requests or complaints are welcomed, as they provide an opportunity for improvement, and a prompt and constructive response is aimed for.