DepArch follows the advices in guidelines and flowcharts on COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) for publication ethics. Peer-reviewed research serves as a basis for scientific method as well as a way of scientific method. In this sense, all stakeholders that has a role in the publishing process as the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, publisher, reviewers, and editors are expected to comply with the following ethical guidelines of the journal:
1.Ethical Responsibilities of Publisher
Article withdrawal, article retraction, removal and replacement policy.
In cases the article must be withdrawn or removed after publication, DepArch electronic archive preserves all versions of the articles.
Article Withdrawal
The editors of our journal may “withdrawn” the articles in Press (articles that have been accepted for publication but which have not been formally published and will not yet have the complete volume/issue/page information) in violation of our journal publishing ethical guidelines (such as multiple submission, fraudulent claims of authorship, plagiarism, dishonest use of data or the like).
Article Retraction
Multiple submissions, fraudulent claims of authorship, plagiarism, dishonest data usage, and the like are all examples of professional ethical code violations. A retraction may be used to remedy mistakes in submission or publishing on rare occasions. It is an infrequent occurrence in the scientific community that an article is withdrawn by its authors or editor on the advice of members of the scientific community.
A number of library and scholarly groups have created standards for dealing with retractions, and DepArch has accepted this best practice for article retraction:
• The authors and/or the editor sign a retraction note headed "Retraction: (manuscript title)" which is published in the paginated portion of a subsequent issue of the journal and included in the contents list.
• A link to the original article is included in the electronic edition.
• A screen with the retraction notice appears before the online article. The link resolves to this screen, and the reader can then proceed to the article itself.
• The original article is kept intact, with the exception of a watermark on the.pdf showing that it has been "retracted" on each page.
• The HTML version of the document is removed.
Article removal: legal limitations
It may be required to remove an article from the online database in a highly limited number of circumstances. When the article is plainly libelous or violates the legal rights of others, or when the article is, or when we have reason to believe it will be, the subject of a court order, if acted upon, might represent a substantial health risk, it will be necessary to remove the article. In these cases, the text will be replaced by a screen explaining that the item has been removed for legal reasons, however the metadata (Title and Authors) will be preserved in definite situations.
Article replacement
The original article's authors may decide to retract the incorrect original and replace it with a revised version in circumstances when acting on the item might result in a major health risk. In these cases, the retraction procedures will be followed. The database retraction message will vary in that it will include a link to the rectified re-published article and a document history.
2.Ethical Responsibilities of the Editors
Introduction
Editors are responsible for being the contact person between the author and the reviewers and communicating with everyone involved in the publication process.

Editorial Board takes into account the consistent criticisms of the manuscripts published in the journal and gives the right to reply to the author(s) of the criticized manuscript.

The Editorial Board is responsible for the overall quality of the content and publication.

• 2.1 Fair play and impartiality

Editors are responsible for evaluating the manuscript in terms of its intellectual content regardless of authors' gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnic origin, citizenship, religion, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the editorial content of the journal and for arranging its publication time.

• 2.2. Confidentiality

Editors are responsible for ensuring confidentiality of the authors and reviewers as a requirement of double-blind peer review process.

The editor must keep the confidential all information about submitted manuscripts, except for sharing with the relevant authors and reviewers, publisher and editorial team.

Confidential information that belongs to submitted manuscripts must not be used for editors’ own research purposes without the permission of the author.

• 2.3. Competing Interests

In case of any potential editorial conflict of interest, it should be declared to the publisher and another member of Editorial Team should be appointed.

Editor must refuse to participate the review process of submitted manuscript for individuals or organizations that he/she has any interest.

• 2.4. Peer Review

Editors should ensure that the submitted manuscripts are evaluated by at least two-peer reviewers have expertise in the relevant subject area.

• 2.5.Publication decisions

The Editor has full responsibility and authority to accept or reject a work. Editors has the right not to accept non-scientific and non-academic evaluations The Editor must consider the original value of the study, its contribution to the field, the validity and reliability of the research method, the clarity of the narrative, and the reviewers’ comments and the plagiarism, copyright infringement, libel and any other legal issues while deciding which submission will be published. In the decision process, the editor can consult the editorial team and the reviewers.

• 2.6. Dealing with Misconduct

The Editorial Board has the authority to withdraw the manuscript if they detect an error in a published work that invalidates the work or important parts of it, contains plagiarism and unethical behaviours. DepArch follows the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) to deal with these unethical issues.

3.Ethical Responsibilities of the Reviewers
3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review that is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, helps making editorial decisions and allows an author to enhance their manuscript through editorial communications.
If the reviewers do not think they are qualified to review the manuscript, or if it does not seem possible to provide a prompt review, he/she should inform the editor and ask him not to involve himself in the review process.
3.2. Confidentiality
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the submitted manuscripts and not share any information about the content of manuscript except with the permission of the editor.
Although the editor encourages professional discussion and support to review the manuscript, the discussion should first be conducted with the editor to ensure confidentiality.
3.3. Suitability and Promptness
If the reviewers do not think they are qualified to review the manuscript, or if it does not seem possible to provide a prompt review, he/she should inform the editor and ask him not to involve himself in the review process. Reviewers are expected to report the review of manuscript within the time limit.
3.4. Ethical Considerations
Reviewer has responsivity to inform the editor about the unethical issues he/she suspects. Review should ensure the appropriate citation in case of similarity of manuscript with others work that invalidates the manuscript or important parts of it.
3.5. Standards of objectivity
Reviewers must conduct the review process objectively considering academic, scholarly and scientific standards, and avoid personal criticism of the author.
3.6. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Reviewers should inform the editor if there is a conflict of interest from competitive, collaborative or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to manuscript and should not accept the review.
Unpublished material included in the submitted manuscript must be kept confidential and it must not be used for reviewers’ own research purposes without the permission of the author.
4.Ethical Responsibilities of the Authors
4.1. Reporting standards
The data in the manuscript must be presented in an appropriate way and contain sufficient detail to provide the others can replicate it.

Responsibility for opinions in manuscript, compliance with scientific and ethical rules belongs to the authors. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statement constitutes unethical behaviour and will be unacceptable.
4.2 Originality and Acknowledgement of Sources
The authors are responsible to submit an original work, and using another’s work/words a in an inappropriate way. The author should use copyrighted materials (for example, tables, figures, or large quotations) used in their manuscript with due permission and thanks.
The publications that are effective in the formation of the original version of the manuscript should be cited as a reference.
Plagiarism in all forms is unethical publication behaviour that is unacceptable.
4.3 Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication
The authors are responsible for not submitting the same manuscripts describing essentially the same research to more than one journal or primary publication as it is an unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable. Authors should submit manuscripts that has not been published in any language before in its entirety or in part, and is not currently under submission or under consideration for publication elsewhere.
4.4. Authorship of the manuscript
All authors must have a direct academic and scientific contribution to the submitted manuscript to the journal. All author(s) named in a manuscript must comply with the following criteria: 1) have participated in the design process, data collection and analysis/interpretation of the data reviewed; and 2) participated in the drafting and critical evaluation of the content; and 3) took the responsibility of checking the accuracy of the study and approving the final version. Author(s) are responsible for specifying their contribution percentages in the cover letter according to their participation rates in the processes.

Others who have not directly participated in these different stages but have participated in substantive aspect of manuscript should not be recognised as authors; however, their contributions should be mentioned in the “acknowledgments” section with permission.

The corresponding author is responsible for confirming that all authors who contributed to the manuscript by complying with the criteria stated above are included in the list and approved the final version.
4.5. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
The author should disclose any potential conflict of interest that may affect the results of manuscript that can be financial as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert witness, patent applications / registrations and grants of other funding and also personal or professional relationships and connections.
The authors should disclose where the support is obtained from, if there is a sponsorship or financial funding that supports the study. If support is not received, it must be stated in the cover letter as “The author(s) declared that no financial support has received no financial support”.
4.6. Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
If the work includes human and animal subjects, ethics committee approval must be obtained from the necessary institutions. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.
Legal/Private Permissions
It is also obligatory to obtain legal/special permission in qualitative or quantitative research that incorporates data collecting from the participants by using survey, interview, focus group interview, observation, and experimental techniques. Authors should use private information by obtaining the written permission from these sources.
4.7. Fundamental errors in published works
If author detects errors and inaccuracies in the publication of the manuscript, they are responsible to inform the journal editor or publisher to correction of paper.
The author(s) is responsible for preparing the study according to the journal writing rules.

5. PUBLICATION ETHICS

Researchers should pay attention to ethical principles during the data collection process.
-A wide variety of situations;

5.1 Plagiarism
• using another’s study as their own, forgetting references or inappropriate references,
5.2 Duplication
• duplication which means multiple publications of the same data and results,
5.3. Citation Manipulation
• submission of names as authors who did not contribute as authors / or ignoring the author' contribution and the order bases on their contribution percentages,
5.4. Fabrication
• submission of fake data and results in the manuscript,
5.5. Salami Slicing
• presenting it as a new publication by dividing the results of previous studies,
are considered unethical behaviours. All articles that do not comply with accepted ethical standards are removed from the DepArch.