Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

TURKBILMAT Education Services is one of the well-known foundations in Turkey. The foundation has been publishing Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT) since 2009, and intended to combine computers and mathematics as “information technology for mathematics education” in this journal because of the fact that a recent indication of the increasing range of work for researchers and educators comes from two sources; computers and mathematics education.

An academic journal is composed of bases: the author, the journal editor, the peer-reviewer, the publisher, and the owner of Society-owned journals have responsibilities to meet expected ethical standards at all stages in their involvement from submission to publication of an article. In this direction, TURCOMAT is committed to meeting and upholding standards of ethical behaviour at all stages of the publication process. We have great respect and we generally follow the guidelines, given by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for any publication disputes, authorship disputes, etc. that set standards and provide guidelines for best practices in order to meet these requirements. Below is a summary of our key expectations of editors, peer-reviewers, and authors.

1. Editors’ Responsibilities

Publication decision: Editors should be accountable for everything published in their journals and strive to meet the needs of readers and authors. Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the editorial board’s reviews and paper’s importance.

Review of Manuscripts: The editor ensures that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor, who may make use of appropriate means, to examine the originality of the contents of the manuscript and ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.

Fair Review: Editors should strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely. The editor ensures that each manuscript received is evaluated on its intellectual content without regard to authors’ sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc.

Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.

2. Authors' Responsibilities

Reporting Standards: Authors should precisely present their original research, as well as objectively discuss its significance. Manuscripts are to be edited in accordance to the submission guidelines of the journal.

Originality: Authors must certify that their work is entirely unique and original.

Redundancy: Authors should not concurrently submit papers describing essentially the same research. Submitting the same paper to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources: Author(s) should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have influenced their research.

Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited only to those who have made a significant contribution to conceiving, designing, executing and/or interpreting the submitted study. All those who have significantly contributed to the study should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author should also ensure that all the authors and co-authors have seen and approved the final submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion as co-authors.

Data Access and Retention: Authors should retain raw data related to their submitted paper, and must provide it for editorial review, upon request of the editor.

Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her submitted manuscript, the author must immediately notify the editor.

3. Reviewers’ Responsibilities

Confidentiality: Manuscript reviewers, the editor and the editorial staff must not disclose any information regarding submitted manuscripts. All submitted manuscripts are to be treated as privileged information. Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence.

Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts will be conducted objectively. The reviewers shall express their views clearly, with supporting arguments. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.

Promptness: If a reviewer believes it is not possible for him/her to review the research reported in a manuscript within the designated guidelines, or within stipulated time, he/she should notify the editor, so that the accurate and timely review can be ensured.

Conflict of Interest: All reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the funding bodies.

4. Change or Modification of Published Paper

Withdrawal: Papers published will be withdrawn if authors noticed significant errors. Before accepting withdrawal request, editorial board and Editor-in-chief should talk with authors sufficiently. If a paper were withdrawn,

- Paper in journal database should be removed,
- Link in online publication site should be removed,
- Next phrase or similar phrase to announce the reason should be shown below the paper title in online publication paper list: (This paper was withdrawn because of some technical errors).

Replacement: Papers published can be replaced if authors send an updated paper. Before accepting replacement request, editorial board and Editor-in-chief should talk with authors sufficiently, and at least three reviewers should check the advances. If a paper were replaced,

- Paper in journal database should be replaced,
- Link in online publication site should be replaced,
- Next phrase or similar phrase to announce the reason should be shown below the paper title in online publication paper list: (This paper was replaced because authors sent updated version. Contact editor if you want to check old version).
- Old version should be kept separately, and if someone wants to check old version, editor can send the PDF to him/her.
- However, replacement is acceptable only one time, and only for technical advances.

Removal: Papers published will be removed if reviewers, readers, librarians, publishers or other subjects noticed significant errors or plagiarism. Before removing a paper, editorial board and Editor-in-chief should talk with authors sufficiently, and should provide enough time to have authors’ explanation. If a paper were withdrawn,

- Paper in journal database should be removed,
- Link in online publication site should be removed,
- Next phrase or similar phrase to announce the reason should be shown below the paper title in online publication paper list: (This paper was removed because of plagiarism).

5. Penalties

Double Submission: If double submission was found or noticed from other sources, editorial board should check the status. If the double submission was confirmed as intentional thing,

- Review process will be terminated,
- The reason should be sent to reviewers, editorial board and authors,
- All authors’ name will be marked as black list, and these authors cannot submit any paper to TURCOMAT for three years.

Double Publication: If double publication was found or noticed from other sources, editorial board should check the status. If the double publication was confirmed as intentional thing,

- This should be reported to editorial board and authors,
- This should be sent to publisher published same (or very similar) paper,
- Paper will be removed according to the “Removal” part in chapter 4,
- All authors’ name will be marked as black list, and these authors cannot submit any paper to TURCOMAT for three years.

Plagiarism: If plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) was found or noticed from other sources, editorial board should check the status. If the plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) was confirmed as intentional thing:

- This should be reported to editorial board and authors,
- This should be sent to publisher published same or similar paper,
- Paper will be removed according to the “Removal” part in section 4,

All authors’ name will be marked as black list, and these authors cannot submit any paper to TURCOMAT for five years.

All the Editors, authors, and reviewers, within we agree upon standards of proper ethical behavior and accept the responsibility for fulfilling the following duties and responsibilities, as set by the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines).

TURCOMAT Complaint Policy

TURCOMAT defines a complaint as the expression of being unhappy about a perceived failure during the submission, evaluation or publication process. We infer that the complainant is not simply disagreeing with a decision we have made or something we have published but thinks that there has been a failure of process - for example, a long delay or a rude response - or a severe misjudgment.

TURCOMAT is aware of the complaints stated below:
1) Authorship complaints
2) Plagiarism complaints
3) Multiple, duplicate, concurrent publication/Simultaneous submission
4) Research results misappropriation
5) Allegations of research errors and fraud
6) Research standards violations
7) Undisclosed conflicts of interest
8) Reviewer bias or competitive harmful acts by reviewers.

The best way to reach us is by email. Complaints should ideally be made to the person the complainant is already in contact with over the matter being complained about. If that is not appropriate please email turcomat.journal@gmail.com.

Whenever possible complaints will be dealt with by the relevant member of the editorial staff. If that person cannot deal with the complaint he or she will refer it to a section editor or the executive editor.

Complaints that are not under the control of TURCOMAT editorial staff will be sent to the relevant heads of department. All complaints will be acknowledged within three working days. If possible a full response will be made within four weeks. If this is not possible an interim response will be given within four weeks. Further interim responses will be provided until the complaint is resolved. If the complainant is not happy with the resolution he or she can ask for the complaint to be escalated to the individual's manager or to the executive editor. If the complainant remains unhappy, complaints should be escalated to the editor, whose decision is final.