Editorial Duty of Confidentiality

The Tetkik's editors treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents, which means they will not divulge information about a manuscript to anyone without the authors' permission. During the process of manuscript review the following people may also have access to manuscripts:

• Editors and editorial staff at The Tetkik,
• External reviewers,
• Members of the journal's editorial committees,
• The only occasion when details about a manuscript might be passed to a third party without the authors’ permission is if the editor suspects serious research misconduct.

Allegations of Scientific misconduct - Suspect Research or Publication Misconduct

There are differing definitions of scientific misconduct. At The Tetkik, we deal with these problems on a case by case basis while following guidance produced by the major publication ethics bodies. Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers. Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases. Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable. Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate. Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.

The Tetkik abides the Ethics Toolkit for a Successful Editorial Office. Oku Okut Press and editors of Tetkik; will take reasonable steps to prevent the publication of papers where plagiarism, citation manipulation, data tampering, data fabrication, and other research misconduct have occurred. In no case will Tetkik or its editors knowingly allow such misconduct to occur. If Okut Okut Press and its editors are aware of any allegations of research misconduct related to an article published in their journal, they will follow COPE’s guidelines in dealing with allegations.

Reviewers should notify the Editor when they suspect research or publication misconduct. The editor is responsible for carrying out the necessary actions by following the COPE recommendations.

The Tetkik undertakes implementing the COPE Flowcharts when it encounters allegations of misconduct on the following or similar issues.

• Redundant (duplicate) publication in a submitted manuscript
• Plagiarism in a submitted manuscript
• Fabricated data in a submitted manuscript
• Changes in authorship
• Undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript
• Ghost or gift authorship in a submitted manuscript
• Suspected ethical problem in a submitted manuscript
• Responding to whistleblowers when concerns are raised directly
• Responding to whistleblowers when concerns are raised via social media
  

  
  

Complaints Procedure

This procedure applies to complaints that relate to content, procedures, or policies that are the responsibility of The Tetkik or our editorial staff. Complaints may provide an opportunity and a spur for improvement, and we aim to respond quickly, courteously, and constructively. The complaint must relate to content, procedures, or policies that are the responsibility of The Tetkik or our editorial staff. Complaints should be directly emailed to tetkik@okuokut.org, and will be dealt with confidentially. The editor responds promptly to complaints. The editor follows the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart on complaints.
Complaints at The Tetkik are coordinated by the complaints team, with individual complaints handled by the relevant member of the editorial team and the opportunity for escalation if they cannot be resolved.

• In the case that this initial response is felt to be insufficient, the complainant can request that their complaint is escalated to a more senior member of the team.
• If the complainant remains unhappy, complaints may be escalated to an executive editor and, ultimately the editor-in-chief, whose decision is final.
  If a complainant remains unhappy after what the editor-in-chief considers a definitive reply, the complainant may complain to Oku Okut Association.
• If possible, a full response will be made within two weeks.

COPE publishes a code of practice for editors of scientific journals. It will facilitate the resolution of disputes with member editors, journals, and publishers, but only once a journal’s own complaints procedures have been exhausted.

Appeal Process

Peer review by editors and external reviewers is usually based on a mix of evidence and opinion, and some decisions to reject may be close calls. We welcome serious appeals. If you believe that we have rejected your article wrongly, perhaps because we have misunderstood its scientific content, please submit an appeal (rebuttal) letter to our editorial team at tetkik@okuokut.org. Do not try to submit a revised version of your article at this stage. If we agree, on reading your rebuttal letter, that your appeal is warranted we may then invite you to submit a revised version of your article that we will enter again into our peer review process. Lastly, we can consider only one appeal per manuscript, so please spend as much time and effort on writing the rebuttal letter as you think necessary to put the case clearly - you have one chance, so use it well. We have found that prolonged negotiation over rejected papers are usually unsatisfactory for both authors and editors, so we no longer engage in this.

Conflicts of Interest

Conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). We believe that, to make the best decision on how to deal with an article, we should know about any competing interests that authors may have, and that if we publish the article readers should know about them too.

Conflict of Interest is any financial or other interest that may conflict with one's work, significantly impair objectivity, or provide an unfair advantage to any person or organization. All authors must disclose in their writing any financial and personal relationships with individuals or organizations that may be seen to improperly influence their work. All financial support resources and the role of sponsors in the study should be explained during the conduct of the research and the preparation of the article. If there is no source of funding, this should also be stated. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that need to be disclosed include consultations, hiring, grants. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

The Tetkik has a declared process for handling submissions from the editors, employees or members of the editorial board to ensure unbiased review. Such manuscripts are primarily directed to other journals. If this is not possible, the author's role in the Journal will be temporarily terminated. These submissions are reviewed through a double-blind process.

The editor must not be involved in decisions about papers which s/he has written him/herself or have been written by family members. Further, any such submission must be subject to all of the journal’s usual procedures. The editor shall apply the ICMJE guidelines relating to the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers. 

Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics may be defined as a self-regulatory mechanism insisting on integrity on the part of authors, peer reviewers, and publishers to establish higher standards of editorial processing”. Ethical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and that people receive credit for their ideas.

• Ethical researchers do not plagiarize.
• They do not misreport sources.
• They do not conceal objections that they cannot rebut.
• They do not caricature or distort opposing views.
• They do not destroy or conceal sources and data important for those who follow.

Peer-reviewed studies are the ones that support and materialize the scientific method. At this point, it is of utmost importance that all parties included in the publication process (authors, readers, and researchers, publisher, reviewers, and editors) comply with the standards of ethical considerations. The Tetkik adheres to national and international standards on research and publication ethics. It complies with Press Law, Intellectual and Artistic Works Law, and Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive. The Tetkik adopted the International Ethical Publishing Principles published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). It also undertakes to comply with the Decisions of the Turkey Editors' Workshop.

• Press Law (National Legislation)
• Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (National Legislation)
• Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive (National Legislation)
• Transparency and Best Practice in Academic Publishing
• Decisions of the Turkey Editors' Workshop (National Legislation)
  

Duplicate Publication

Duplicate publication is the publication of the same article or substantially similar articles in more than one journal. The editor returns the article unreviewed. After that, the editor may consider no articles by any of the authors for a period of time and may announce publicly in the journal (perhaps as a simultaneous announcement with the editor of the journal that published the earlier article) that the authors have submitted a previously published article, or may do any combination of these actions, at the editor’s discretion.

Simultaneous submission of manuscripts

Authors may not send the same manuscript to more that one journal at the same time. If the editor learns of possible simultaneous submission, the editor reserves the right to consult with the other editor(s) who have received the article. Further, the editor may return the article without review, or may reject it without regard to the reviews, or make this decision in discussion with the other editor(s) involved, and may decide to consider no articles from the author from the authors for a period of time, and may also write to the authors' employers, or may do any combination of these actions, at the editor’s discretion.

Publication Check for Plagiarism

In an instructional setting, plagiarism occurs when a writer deliberately uses someone else’s language, ideas, or other original (not common knowledge) material without acknowledging its source.

The Tetkik routinely screens article submissions for Plagiarism. The studies submitted for review are checked for plagiarism using the Turnitin software. The similarity rate is expected to be less than 15%. The main measure of similarity is that the author complies with the citation and citation rules. Even though the similarity rate is 1%, if the citation and citation are not duly made, plagiarism may still be in question. In this respect, citation and citation rules should be known and carefully applied by the author: www.isnadsistemi.org

All submitted manuscripts to the journal are scanned for similarity via Turnitin to prevent plagiarism. Plagiarism, duplication, false authorship/denied authorship, research/data fabrication, article slicing, slicing, copyright infringement, and concealment of conflict of interest are considered unethical behaviors. All articles that do not comply with accepted ethical standards are removed from the publication. This includes articles with possible irregularities and inconsistencies detected after publication.

Data fabrication and falsification

Data fabrication means the researcher did not actually do the study but made up data. Data falsification means the researcher did the experiment but then changed some of the data. Both of these practices make people distrust scientists. If the public is mistrustful of science, then it will be less willing to provide funding support.

Human participants

The Tetkik requires that all research involving personal or sensitive data or material relating to human participants that is not legally available to the public is subject to formal ethical review.

Dealing with allegations of research misconduct

The Tetkik abides the Ethics Toolkit for a Successful Editorial Office. Oku Okut Press and editors of the Tetkik; will take reasonable steps to prevent the publication of papers where plagiarism, citation manipulation, data tampering, data fabrication, and other research misconduct have occurred. In no case will Tetkik or its editors knowingly allow such misconduct to occur. If Okut Okut Press and its editors are aware of any allegations of research misconduct related to an article published in their journal, they will follow COPE’s Ethical Principles Flow Chart.

Complaints

Should you encounter any unethical act or content in the journal apart from the ethical responsibilities listed above, please notify the journal by e-mail at tetkik@okuokut.org

Research Ethics

The Tetkik 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 transparency 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; 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, the 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 a 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.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

Authorship and Responsibility:
Under no circumstances should generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools be designated as authors or co-authors of a scholarly manuscript. The authors bear full responsibility for the content, accuracy, and originality of the submitted work. The utilization of AI tools does not absolve authors from their scientific, ethical, and intellectual responsibilities. The journal strictly prohibits the use of AI in generating fake authorship or falsifying identity.

Transparency and Declaration:
Any use of AI tools during the research, writing, or processes must be explicitly and transparently disclosed within the manuscript. This disclosure should be included in the "Methods" or "Acknowledgements" section, as appropriate. The statement must clearly specify the full names and version numbers of the AI tools used, alongside a detailed explanation of how and for what purposes these tools were employed.

Generative AI Usage Policies for Editors
Confidentiality and Intellectual Property Responsibility:
Editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, associated files, images, or any related information to AI tools. Safeguarding the confidentiality of submitted content and protecting the intellectual property rights of authors are fundamental responsibilities of editors.

Use of AI in the Editorial Evaluation Process:
Editors may utilize AI tools in specific aspects of the editorial workflow—such as initial eligibility screening or reviewer selection—only with the explicit approval of journal management. Any such use of AI must be transparently communicated to the authors.

Management of Suspected Misuse:
In cases of uncertainty or concern regarding the use of AI, editors should engage in transparent communication with the authors and, where appropriate, request supporting evidence. Matters requiring further scrutiny should be escalated to journal management for formal review.

Evaluation of Authors’ Declarations on AI Use:
Editors are expected to carefully review authors’ statements concerning the use of AI tools and request clarification or additional information when necessary. It is the editors’ responsibility to assess whether the declared use of AI complies with the journal’s established policies.

Staying Informed on Policy Developments:
Editors should remain informed about ongoing developments in generative AI technologies and ensure they are up to date with the journal’s evolving policies on AI usage.

Generative AI Usage Policies for Reviewers
Detection of AI Use:
Reviewers are encouraged to identify any potential undisclosed use of AI within the manuscripts they assess and to notify the editors if such cases are suspected. Nonetheless, any such assessments should rely on clear, objective evaluation standards.

Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibility:
Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts or any associated documents submitted for peer review to generative AI platforms under any circumstances. Doing so could compromise confidentiality and potentially infringe on intellectual property rights.Evaluation processes should be carried out using the reviewer’s own level of expertise and knowledge.

Evaluation Ethics:
Reviewers should assess authors' use of AI impartially, ensuring that personal opinions or biases do not interfere with the journal’s established policies. Any feedback or criticism related to the use of AI should be constructive and aligned with the journal’s official guidelines.

Permitted Areas of Use
Conceptual Diagrams and Explanatory Visuals
Generative AI may be employed to depict theoretical ideas, conceptual frameworks, or processes visually. Any visuals created in this manner must faithfully represent the author’s own understanding and explanations.

Data Visualization
Authors are welcome to utilize AI tools to enhance the visual presentation of their research data. These tools can be particularly helpful for improving the clarity and design of graphs, charts, and tables.

Illustrations and Representative Visuals
AI-generated visuals may be used to create illustrative or symbolic representations that clarify and simplify complex ideas. Such visuals should support reader comprehension and must not distort or misrepresent the concepts being explained.

Restricted or Prohibited Areas of AI Use
Content Creation
The use of AI to generate substantial sections of a scholarly manuscript—such as the abstract, introduction, literature review, or discussion—is deemed inappropriate. AI-generated content should be treated solely as preliminary drafts or suggestions and must be thoroughly reviewed, revised, and refined by the author(s) to ensure academic rigor and originality.

Generation and Interpretation of Research Results
AI tools must not be employed to produce, report, or interpret research findings. The full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and validity of the data analysis and its interpretation lies exclusively with the author(s).

Reference Generation and Citation
The use of AI tools to generate fabricated, unverifiable, or non-existent references is strictly prohibited. All cited sources must be verifiable, accurately referenced, and approved by the author(s), in accordance with scholarly standards.

Academic Writing and Argumentation
The development of the article’s central arguments, theoretical contributions, and principal theses is the sole responsibility of the author(s). AI may serve only as a supplementary aid in the writing process and must not replace the author’s critical reasoning or original scholarly contribution.

Procedures in Case of Policy Violation
Failure to disclose the use of AI tools or using them in violation of the stated guidelines may result in the rejection of the manuscript during the review process. If a policy violation is identified after publication, corrective actions may include the retraction of the article or the issuance of a formal correction. Repeated or serious breaches of this policy may lead to the rejection of future submissions by the author(s) to the journal.