Turkish Journal of Special Education Research and Practice (TRSPED) has a Conflict of Interest policy in place and complies with international, national and/or institutional standards on research involving Human Participants and/or Animals and Informed Consent. The journal adopts/follows the Committee on Publication Ethics' (COPE) principles on dealing with acts of misconduct. The journal may use plagiarism detection software to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed. Content published in this journal is peer-reviewed (Double Blind).
July 14 2023
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
The Turkish Journal of Special Education Research (TRSPED) and its Publisher are members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). As a result, this journal adheres to the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, as well as COPE Core Practices.
Outlined below are some essential points, although it is recommended to refer to the aforementioned documents for comprehensive details.
Editorial Responsibilities
Fairness and Editorial Independence
Manuscripts submitted to TRSPED are evaluated solely based on their academic merit, including their importance, originality, validity of the study, and clarity. The editorial team makes these assessments without considering the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are independent of external policies imposed by governments or any other agencies. The Editor retains full authority over the entire editorial content and determines the publication schedule.
Confidentiality
Editors and editorial staff are obligated to maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts. Information regarding a manuscript should only be disclosed to the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Editors and editorial board members must obtain explicit written consent from authors before using unpublished information from a submitted manuscript for their own research. They should treat privileged information acquired during the manuscript handling process as confidential and refrain from exploiting it for personal gain. Editors should recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers. In such cases, another member of the editorial board will handle the manuscript.
Publication Decisions
Editors ensure that all manuscripts submitted for publication undergo a peer-review process by at least two experts in the field. The Editor is responsible for the final decision on publication, taking into account the validation of the work, its significance to the research community and readers, reviewers' comments, and legal requirements related to libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor may consult with other editors or reviewers before making a final decision.
Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations
Editors are committed to addressing ethical concerns raised regarding submitted manuscripts or published papers. Any act of unethical publishing behavior, even if discovered years after publication, will be thoroughly investigated. TRSPED editors adhere to the COPE Flowcharts while dealing with suspected misconduct. If an ethical concern is found to be valid, the journal will publish a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or any other relevant note.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Contributions to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists editors in making informed editorial decisions and helps authors enhance their manuscripts through constructive feedback. TRSPED believes that scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to participate in fair peer review.
Promptness
Reviewers who feel unqualified to evaluate a manuscript or cannot complete the review within the given timeframe should promptly inform the editors and decline the invitation. This allows alternative reviewers to be contacted.
Confidentiality
Reviewers must treat all manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. They should not share or discuss the manuscripts with others unless authorized by the Editor under exceptional circumstances. This confidentiality requirement also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Objectivity Standards
Reviews should be conducted objectively, and reviewers should formulate their observations clearly, providing supporting arguments that can help authors improve their manuscripts. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that authors may have overlooked. They should ensure that observations, derivations, or arguments reported in previous publications are appropriately cited. Reviewers should also inform the editors if they are aware of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and other published or unpublished works.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Reviewers with conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscript should promptly notify the editors. They should declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review, enabling alternative reviewers to be assigned. Reviewers who decline the review invitation should also maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript. Unpublished material obtained during the peer review process should not be used in a reviewer's own research without explicit written consent from the authors. Reviewers must keep privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review confidential and should not use them for personal advantage, even if they decline the review invitation.
Author Responsibilities
Reporting Standards
Authors of original research should provide an accurate account of their work and results, followed by an objective discussion of its significance. Sufficient detail and references should be included to enable others to replicate the study. Review articles should be accurate, objective, and comprehensive, while editorial opinion pieces should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are considered unethical and unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention
Authors may be requested to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review. Authors should be willing to make the data publicly available if possible. In any case, authors should ensure the accessibility of the data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication, while also respecting participant confidentiality and any legal rights related to proprietary data.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should submit only original works and give appropriate credit to the work and words of others. Any influences from previous publications should be acknowledged. Plagiarism, in any form, is considered unethical and unacceptable.
Multiple Submissions and Concurrent Publications
Authors should not submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research to multiple journals or primary publications. Submitting a manuscript that has already been published elsewhere is also prohibited. Concurrent submission of a manuscript to multiple journals is considered unethical and unacceptable. However, certain circumstances may justify the secondary publication of specific types of articles (e.g., clinical guidelines, translations) if agreed upon by the authors and editors of the respective journals. The primary document must be cited in the secondary publication.
Authorship of the Manuscript
Authors listed in a manuscript should meet specific authorship criteria. They should have made significant contributions to the study's conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation. Authors should have drafted or critically revised the manuscript, seen and approved the final version, and agreed to its submission for publication. Individuals who made substantial contributions but do not meet the authorship criteria should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section with their written permission. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring the appropriate inclusion of coauthors and confirming that all coauthors have approved the final manuscript and agreed to its submission.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Authors should disclose any conflicts of interest that could potentially influence the results or interpretation presented in their manuscript. These conflicts may include financial or non-financial interests such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, memberships, or personal/professional relationships relevant to the subject matter. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Authors should properly acknowledge the work of others and cite influential publications that contributed to their own work. Information obtained privately must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not utilize information acquired through confidential services, such as manuscript or grant reviewing, without obtaining written permission from the authors of the relevant work.
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
If a study involves chemicals, procedures, equipment, or materials with inherent hazards, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. Studies involving animals or human participants should comply with relevant laws and institutional guidelines, and authors should state their adherence to such requirements. Authors must include a statement in the manuscript confirming that informed consent was obtained for experiments involving human participants. The privacy rights of human participants should always be respected.
Peer Review
Authors are expected to actively participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by promptly responding to editors' requests for raw data, clarifications, ethics approvals, patient consents, and copyright permissions. In cases where revisions are requested, authors should address reviewers' comments systematically, point by point, and within the given timeframe, ultimately revising and resubmitting the manuscript.
Correction of Errors in Published Works
If authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work, they must promptly inform the journal's editors or publisher and cooperate to correct the paper through an erratum or, in severe cases, a retraction. If the editors or publisher become aware of significant errors or inaccuracies from a third party, authors must promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to support the correctness of the work.
Publisher Responsibilities
Handling Unethical Publishing Behavior
The publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, is responsible for addressing allegations or evidence of scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism. Appropriate measures will be taken to clarify the situation and correct the affected article. These measures may include the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification, or, in severe cases, the retraction of the work. The publisher and editors are committed to identifying and preventing the publication of papers involving research misconduct and will not encourage or knowingly allow such misconduct.
Access to Journal Content
The publisher is dedicated to ensuring the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research. By partnering with organizations and maintaining its digital archive, the publisher guarantees accessibility to journal content over time.
