The publication process in the journal of Religion and Philosophical Research constitutes to the development and distribution of knowledge objectively and in a respected way. For this reason, the applied processes are reflected on the quality of the writers’ and the quality of institutions works which support the authors. Reviewed articles reify and promote the scientific method. At this point, it is of importance for all the stakeholders of the process (writers, readers and researchers, publisher, reviewer and the editors) to be in accordance with standards about ethic principles. Religion and Philosophical Research expects all stakeholders to carry on the ethic responsibilities below within the context of publication ethics.
The ethical duty and responsibilities below were prepared by taking into consideration the guides and policies published by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as open access (See (COPE Yönerge Türkçe)
It is a building block for an article to be published in a refereed-journal which is necessary for the development of knowledge network that is agreeable and respected. This is the direct reflection of the quality of writers’ and their institutions’ studies. Reviewed articles reify and promote the scientific method. Therefore, it is important to reach an agreement about publication for all the stakeholders, the writer, journal’s editor, the reviewer and the publishing associations:
• The bibliography must be complete.
• No place must be given for plagiarism and false data.
• The same study must not be tried to be published in more than one journal, rules of the scientific research and publication ethics must be obeyed.
Actions against the scientific research and publication ethics are:
a) Plagiarism: Presenting others’ ideas, methods, data, practices, writing, forms or studies partly or wholly without referencing to the owners according to scientific rules,
b) Forgery: Producing data that is not based on research, editing or changing the presented or published study by basing it on fictitious data, reporting or publishing these, showing an unmade research as if it were made,
c) Distortion: Falsifying the obtained data and the research records, showing the methods, devices and materials that were not used in the study as if they had been used, not taking the data that are not inappropriate to the research hypothesis into consideration, juggling with data and/or results to make them be appropriate to the related theory and presuppositions, falsifying or manipulating the research results in accordance with the advantages of the people and the institutions that support the researcher,
d) Dissection: Dissecting the results of a study in a way that would destroy the integrity of the study and inappropriately, and using these in associate professorship exam evaluations by making a lot of publications of them without referencing each other and presenting these as separate studies in academic promotions,
e) Undeserved authorship: Including those who don’t have an active contribution in authors, not including those who have an active contribution in authors, changing the ranking of authors without a reason and inappropriately, excluding the names of those with active contribution from the study during publication or in next publications, making one’s name included – by exerting influence – in authors despite having no active contribution,
f) Other types of violation of ethics: Not stating openly the people, institutions and organizations and their contributions to the study in the publication of the researches that are made by the support of those, not following the ethic rules in studies done on humans or animals, not respecting the rights of patients in the publications, reviewer’s sharing the knowledge in a study, which is to be reviewed, with others before it is published, using the sources, places, opportunities and devices, which are provided or kept for scientific researches, out of their purposes, accusing someone of violation of ethics in a baseless, injudicious and malicious way (YOK Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Guideline, Article 8)
2. Author’s Responsibilities
• All authors should considerably contribute to the study.
• The statement that all the data in the article is real and authentic is necessary.
• All the authors should ensure withdrawal and correction of mistakes
• Article written in the Arabic language will normally have an Arabic bibliography. It is also necessary to create a second bibliography by Latinizing this Arabic bibliography.
3. Reviewers’ Responsibilities
I. When the requirements that are asked in the reviewer assessment form sent by the editors are fulfilled, the charge for the article assessment will be paid.
II. There are two main principles in the assessment form that reviewers should follow in the assessment form.
a) In case the reviewer answers the required clauses in the report positively or negatively, s/he must present both of them with justifications.
b) The reviewer must certainly put forward “alternative suggestions” when s/he asks for correction or answers negatively.
III. When the file is delivered the reviewer must urgently inform the editors that the file reached to him/her without any problems.
IV. The reviewer must inform the editor at most in a week about whether s/he will assess the study by considering the appropriateness of the projected assessment time and the subject of the study.
V. For the assessment of a study the reviewers are given a time of 30 days. The reviewer cannot ask for additional time in order not for the authors to lose rights. The charge is not paid to a reviewer who did not send assessment reports within this time.
VI. If the reviewer thinks that he cannot act fairly because of various reasons (author, institution, sponsor etc.), s/he should inform the editors that he will not assess the study at most in a week.
VII. The reviewer assessments are expected to be objective and critical.
VIII. The authors are expected to make only a text-centered assessment, to avoid statements about the insufficiencies of the author/authors and not to use expressions that would destroy their reputations.
IX. The reviewer is expected not to answer the assessment criterion only as yes or no, to give details about the negative opinions and to state the justifications.
X. Moreover, the editor does not send assessments to the reviewers in these cases so far as possible:
• To the reviewers with whom the author/authors previously published collaborative work,
• To the reviewers who helped the author/authors in their pre-readings,
• To the reviewers with whom the author/authors are known to have problems previously.
• To the reviewers who would benefit financially from the publication of the study,
• To the reviewers who work in the same institution (the same department).
XI. Some points of two reviewer reports might contradict with each other. In this case, the editor meets with the reviewers and finds a solution.
4. Editorial Responsibilities
• Editors have all the responsibility and authority to accept or decline an article.
• Editors should not be in a conflict of interest about the articles they accepted or declined.
• Only the articles that would contribute in the field should be accepted.
• Editors should side a publication for correction or withdrawal when mistakes are found.
• Editors must keep the names of the reviewers hidden and must prevent plagiarism/false data.
• The review process is located in the centre of the success in scientific publication. It is a part of our promise to save and develop the review process. Religion and Philosophical Research has to help scientific community in every case that is about the scientific publication ethics, especially when there are doubtful, repeated publications or in cases of plagiarism.
A reader may file a report by sending an e-mail to email@example.com when s/he finds a significant mistake or error in an article published in Religion and Philosophical Research or when s/he has a complaint about the editorial content (plagiarism, repeated articles etc.). Since complaints provide opportunities for our development, we take them kindly and we aim to give feedbacks that are quick and constructive.
5. Discovering Plagiarism
Articles sent to be published in the journal are assessed by at least two reviewers with two-sided blind review evaluation.