Contributions should be prepared strictly in line with the instructions for authors. Please download the paper template Paper Template and Instructions.

Format

Article files should be provided in Microsoft Word format

Copyright Form

While you are welcome to submit a PDF of the document alongside the Word file, PDFs alone are not acceptable. LaTeX files can also be used but only if an accompanying PDF document is provided. Acceptable figure file types are listed further below.

Article length / word count

Articles should be up to a maximum of 10000 words in length. This includes all text, for example, the structured abstract, references, all text in tables, and figures and appendices.



Please allow 280 words for each figure or table.

Article title

A concisely worded title should be provided.

Author details

The names of all contributing authors should be added to the ScholarOne submission; please list them in the order in which you’d like them to be published. Each contributing author will need their own ScholarOne author account, from which we will extract the following details:

Author email address (institutional preferred).

Author name. We will reproduce it exactly, so any middle names and/or initials they want featured must be included.

Author affiliation. This should be where they were based when the research for the paper was conducted.

In multi-authored papers, it’s important that ALL authors that have made a significant contribution to the paper are listed. Those who have provided support but have not contributed to the research should be featured in an acknowledgements section. You should never include people who have not contributed to the paper or who don’t want to be associated with the research. Read about our research ethics for authorship.

Biographies and acknowledgements

If you want to include these items, save them in a separate Microsoft Word document and upload the file with your submission. Where they are included, a brief professional biography of not more than 100 words should be supplied for each named author.

Research funding

Your article must reference all sources of external research funding in the acknowledgements section. You should describe the role of the funder or financial sponsor in the entire research process, from study design to submission.

Structured abstract

All submissions must include a structured abstract, following the format outlined below.

These four sub-headings and their accompanying explanations must always be included:

Purpose

Design/methodology/approach

Findings

Originality

The following three sub-headings are optional and can be included, if applicable:

Research limitations/implications

Practical implications

Social implications


You can find some useful tips in our write an article abstract how-to guide.

The maximum length of your abstract should be 250 words in total, excluding keywords and article classification (see the sections below).

Keywords

Your submission should include up to 12 appropriate and short keywords that capture the principal topics of the paper. Our Creating an SEO-friendly manuscript how to guide contains some practical guidance on choosing search-engine friendly keywords.

Please note, while we will always try to use the keywords you’ve suggested, the in-house editorial team may replace some of them with matching terms to ensure consistency across publications and improve your article’s visibility.

Article classification

During the submission process, you will be asked to select a type for your paper; the options are listed below. If you don’t see an exact match, please choose the best fit:

You will also be asked to select a category for your paper. The options for this are listed below. If you don’t see an exact match, please choose the best fit:

Research paper. Reports on any type of research undertaken by the author(s), including:

The construction or testing of a model or framework

Action research

Testing of data, market research or surveys

Empirical, scientific or clinical research

Papers with a practical focus

Viewpoint. Covers any paper where content is dependent on the author's opinion and interpretation. This includes journalistic and magazine-style pieces.

Technical paper. Describes and evaluates technical products, processes or services.

Conceptual paper. Focuses on developing hypotheses and is usually discursive. Covers philosophical discussions and comparative studies of other authors’ work and thinking.

Case study. Describes actual interventions or experiences within organizations. It can be subjective and doesn’t generally report on research. Also covers a description of a legal case or a hypothetical case study used as a teaching exercise.

Literature review. This category should only be used if the main purpose of the paper is to annotate and/or critique the literature in a particular field. It could be a selective bibliography providing advice on information sources, or the paper may aim to cover the main contributors to the development of a topic and explore their different views.

General review. Provides an overview or historical examination of some concept, technique or phenomenon. Papers are likely to be more descriptive or instructional (‘how to’ papers) than discursive.

Headings

Headings must be concise, with a clear indication of the required hierarchy.

The preferred format is for first level headings to be in bold, and subsequent sub-headings to be in medium italics.

Notes/endnotes

Notes or endnotes should only be used if absolutely necessary. They should be identified in the text by consecutive numbers enclosed in square brackets. These numbers should then be listed, and explained, at the end of the article.

Figures

All figures (charts, diagrams, line drawings, webpages/screenshots, and photographic images) should be submitted electronically. Both colour and black and white files are accepted.

There are a few other important points to note:

All figures should be supplied at the highest resolution/quality possible with numbers and text clearly legible.

Acceptable formats are .ai, .eps, .jpeg, .bmp, and .tif.

Electronic figures created in other applications should be supplied in their original formats and should also be either copied and pasted into a blank MS Word document, or submitted as a PDF file.

All figures should be numbered consecutively with Arabic numerals and have clear captions.

All photographs should be numbered as Plate 1, 2, 3, etc. and have clear captions.

Tables

Tables should be typed and submitted in a separate file to the main body of the article. The position of each table should be clearly labelled in the main body of the article with corresponding labels clearly shown in the table file. Tables should be numbered consecutively in Roman numerals (e.g. I, II, etc.).

Give each table a brief title. Ensure that any superscripts or asterisks are shown next to the relevant items and have explanations displayed as footnotes to the table, figure or plate.

It is encouraged to use APA 7th Edition which is exemplified below. The references should be written 10 pt with 1 line spacing. To indicate references, select the hanging intend (1,27 intend value) from the paranthesis dialog box. The references should be listed in alphabetical order of authors’ names and in chronological order for each author. For the punctuation and spelling rules, the APA styling reference should be followed. Further details about the APA reference styling is available at http://www.apastyle.org/ https://apastyle.apa.org/instructional-aids/reference-examples.pdf ve https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/nsb/page/9435

Books
Author, A. (Year). Title of the book (edition). Publisher, Doi number or URL

Ewert, E.W., Mitten, D.S., & Overholt, J.R. (2014). Natural environments and human health. CAB International.
https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845939199.0000
Foxall, G. R. (2018). Context and cognition in consumer psychology: How perception and emotion guide action. Routledge.
Schmidt, N. A., & Brown, J. M. (2017). Evidence-based practice for nurses: Appraisal and application of research (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC.

Book chapter: Author, A. (Year). Publisher. In A. Editor Surname & A. Editor Surname (Eds.), Title of the Book (2nd ed., pp. #-#), Publisher. Doi number or URL.

Aron, L., Botella, M., & Lubart, T. (2019). Culinary arts: Talent and their development. In R. F. Subotnik, P. Olszewski-Kubilius, & F. C. Worrell (Eds.), The psychology of high performance: Developing human potential into domain-specific talent (pp. 345–359). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000120-016

Journals
Author, A. A., Author, B. (Year). Article title. Title of the Journal, volume(number), #–#. Doi number.

Journal with doi number: Author, A. A., Author, B. (Year). Article title. Title of the Journal, volume(number), #–#. Doi number.

Journal with Arxiv number: Author, A. A., Author, B. (Year). Article title. Arxiv number.

Ashing‐Giwa, K. T., Padilla, G., Tejero, J., Kraemer, J., Wright, K., Coscarelli, A., Clayton, S., Williams, I., & Hills, D. (2004). Understanding the breast cancer experience of women: A qualitative study of African American, Asian American, Latina and Caucasian cancer survivors. Psycho‐Oncology, 13(6), 408-428. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.750
Washington, E. T. (2014). An overview of cyberbully in higher education. Adult Learning, 26(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159514558412
Moody, M. S. (2019). If instructional coaching really works, why isn’t it working? Educational Leadership, 77(3), 30–35.
Dayton, K. J. (2019). Tangled arms: Modernizing and unifying the arm-of-the-state doctrine. The University of Chicago Law Review, 86(6), 1497–1737. https://bit.ly/2SkWwcy

Conferences
Conference and poster presentation: Author, A. A., Author, B. (Year, Conference Dates). Title of the paper, [Types of presentation]. Title of the Conference, Located City, Country. URL

Davidson, R. J. (2019, August 8–11). Well-being is a skill [Conference session]. APA 2019 Convention, Chicago, IL, United States. https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/a5ea5d51/files/uploaded/APA2019_Program_190708.pdf

Conference proceedings: Author, A. A., Author, B. (Year). Title of the paper. In A. Surname of Editor(s), Title of the Conference Proceeding (pp. #-#). Publisher. Doi number or URL

Bedenel, A.-L., Jourdan, L., & Biernacki, C. (2019). Probability estimation by an adapted genetic algorithm in web insurance. In R. Battiti, M. Brunato, I. Kotsireas, & P. Pardalos (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 11353. Learning and intelligent optimization (pp. 225–240). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05348-2_21

Morgan, R., Meldrum, K., Bryan, S., Mathiesen, B., Yakob, N., Esa, N., & Ziden, A. A. (2017). Embedding digital literacies in curricula: Australian and Malaysian experiences. In G. B. Teh & S. C. Choy (Eds.), Empowering 21st century learners through holistic and enterprising learning: Selected papers from Tunku Abdul Rahman University College International Conference 2016 (pp. 11-19). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4241-6_2

Thesis
Published thesis: Author, A. (Year). Title of the thesis. (Publication No.) [Doctoral dissertation / Master’s Thesis, University Name]. Name of the Database.

Horvath-Plyman, M. (2018). Social media and the college student journey: An examination of how social media use impacts social capital and affects college choice, access, and transition (Publication No. 10937367) [Doctoral dissertation, New York University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Unpublished thesis: Author, A. (Year). Title of the thesis. (Publication No.) [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation / Master’s Thesis]. University Name.

Harris, L. (2014). Instructional leadership perceptions and practices of elementary school leaders [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Virginia.

Report
Author, A. A. (Year). Report name. (Report No.). Institution. URL
Institution (Year). Report name. (Report No.). URL

World Health Organization. (2014). Comprehensive implementation plan on maternal, infant and young child nutrition.
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/113048/WHO_NMH_NHD_14.1_eng.pdf?ua=1

Winthrop, R., Ziegler, L., Handa, R., & Fakoya, F. (2019). How playful learning can help leapfrog progress in education. Center for Universal Education at Brookings.
https://www.brookings.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/how_playful_learning_can_help_leapfrog_progress_in_education.pdf

Online resources
Web page: Author, A. / Institution (Year, Month Day). Title of the content. Title of the Web Page. Retrieved Month Day, Year, from URL.

Center for Systems Science and Engineering. (2020, May 6). COVID-19 dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU). Johns Hopkins University & Medicine, Coronavirus Resource Center. Retrieved May 6, 2020, from https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

Blog: Author, A. (Year, Month Day). Title of the content. Title of blog. URL.

Rutledge, P. (2019, March 11). The upside of social media. The Media Psychology Blog.
https://www.pamelarutledge.com/2019/03/11/the-upside-of-social-media/

Online Article: Yazar, A. (Yıl, Ay Gün). İçerik adı. Dergi Adı. URL

Gander, K. (2020, April 29). COVID-19 vaccine being developed in Australia raises antibodies to neutralize virus in pre-clinical tests. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/australia-covid-19-vaccine-neutralize-virus-1500849

Online Newspaper Article: Author, A. (Year, Month Day). Title of the content. Title of the Newspaper. URL.

Roberts, S. (2020, April 9). Early string ties us to Neanderthals. The New York Times.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/science/neanderthals-fiber-string-math.html

Online Dictionary: Author, A. (Year, Month Day). Title of the content. In title of the dictionary. Retrieved Month Day, Year, from URL

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Internet addiction. In APA dictionary of psychology. Retrieved April 24, 2020, from https://dictionary.apa.org/internet-addiction

• Author(s) must ensure the accuracy and truthfulness of the data used in the study; keeping records of research processes and procedures neatly; and providing the relevant raw data and/or information, in case it is required by the editorial and scientific boards.
• Authors need to ensure that their manuscript has not been published elsewhere or has not been accepted for publication in any other peer-reviewed journal.
• People who have not contributed to the study at the intellectual level should not be indicated/assigned as authors.
• Authors have to follow the related national and international rules and regulations, if their studies include animal and/or human subjects (for example, WMA Helsinki Declaration, PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, The EU Directive on the Use of Animals); to prove that the necessary permissions and approvals are provided; to respect the privacy of subjects/participants.
• If the manuscripts submitted to be published are subject of conflicting interests or relations, these must be shared with the editor and the publisher. If it is seen necessary, providing and annex or error proclaim or withdrawing the manuscript.
• During the peer reviewing processes, authors might be required to provide the raw data they used in their studies to the Editorial Board. So, they are expected to share the relevant data with the Editorial Board and to keep safe all relevant to data at least for five years.
• Author(s) bears the responsibility to inform the editor of the journal or publisher if they happen to notice a mistake in their study which is in early release or publication process and to cooperate with the editors during the correction or withdrawal process.

Note: In accordance with the decision of the ULAKBIM (Turkish National Academic Network and Information Centre), all manuscripts submitted to JAH, which use data provided by human subjects/participants, required to ensure that they have already went under an investigation and gained the relevant Ethics Committee’s approval. The name of the Ethics Committee, the date of the decision and the relevant decision number should be stated in the cover page, methods section and the last page of the manuscript. In order not to harm the blind reviewing processes, this information should only be included in the manuscript in its last version after its acceptance for the publication. The authors also required to provide evidence (ie, getting permissions from the relevant persons or bodies, when using questionnaires, scales, photos or documents developed by others or belong to others) that they obeyed the ethical rules and regulations during the data collection processes. Further, it must also be stated in the manuscripts that the authors followed the relevant publication ethics and copyrights policies. If the study includes human and animal subjects, it must be stated that the research conducted in accordance with international guidance, rules, regulations and standards. The authors are not required to submit and Ethics Committee approval, if the only submits a compilation study. In case of this, it must be stated on the first and last pages of the manuscripts an in the methods section that the current study does not require an Ethics Committee approval. The manuscripts including case reports should also provide the information that an informed consent form was read, approved and signed by the participants.
Ethical Duties and Responsibilities of the Editor
The editor and field editors of JAH should hold the following ethical responsibilities that are based on the guides "COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" and "COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" published as open Access by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). These can be accessed on the link below: https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf)
• While fulfilling editorial duties and responsibilities, adopting balanced and objective behaviors; and approaching the authors fairly without discriminating anyone on the grounds of her/his gender, religious belief, political standpoint, ethnic background or nationality.
• Evaluating the manuscripts sent to JAH on the basis of the “manuscript submission guidelines”, the significance of the study and its originality, and if she/he decides to reject a manuscript after the editorial evaluation, inform the authors the rationale behind this decision clearly and objectively. Informing authors and allocating the necessary time for amendment, if she/he decides that a manuscript needs a thorough revision as a result of several typesetting,, punctuation, writing and layout errors as well as some problems related to the referencing system.
• Taking the necessary cautions and assessing the demands from both sides, if there is a conflict of interests.
• Assessing and evaluating the works submitted to JAH on the basis of their content, without providing privilege to any of them.
• Ensuring that all manuscripts go through a blind peer-reviewing process and the authors do not know anything about the reviewers nor do the reviewers have any information related to the authors.
• Handling sponsored research or studies on special topics in the way that all other manuscripts go through.
• Supporting the authors’ freedom of expression.
• If the authors demand information about their manuscripts, carefully informing them about the processes and state of their manuscripts without breaching the rules and regulations related to blind peer-reviewing processes.
• Continuously updating the manuscript template presenting and explaining what have been expected from the authors.
• Ensuring that all the published papers include the dates of sending and acceptance.
• Endeavoring to improve the quality of the journal and contribute its development.
• If there is a complaint about the breaching an ethical principle, taking the necessary action in accordance with JAH’s relevant policies and procedures. Providing the authors the necessary opportunities to answer the complaints addressed to their manuscript or to defend themselves; and imposing the relevant sanctions fairly and objectively.
• Inviting the reviewers to express that they do not have any conflict of interest with the author(s) of a manuscript before starting to review it.
• Renewing and expanding the number of reviewers while keeping their areas of expertise or specialities in mind.
• Excluding those reviewers who do not fulfil their duties on time or provide feedback and comments being impolite and lacking of quality.
• Rejecting a manuscript which is not appropriate to JAH’s aims and scope.
• Finding and assigning new members for the Editorial Board, who have the potentials to contribute its development.
• Informing the new members of the Editorial Board in relation with JAH’s manuscript submission guide; explaining them about what is expected from a member of the Editorial Board; and informing them about their responsibilities.
• Reviewing the critics/criticism about the journal and answering them, if it is seen necessary.
Ethical Responsibilities of the Reviewers
The fact that all manuscripts are reviewed through "Blind Double Review" has a direct influence on the publication quality. This process ensures confidentiality by objective and independent review. The review process at JAH is carried out on the principle of double-blind review. Neither the reviewers know and/or contact the authors directly, nor do the authors have any information related to the reviewers. The reviews and comments are conveyed through the journal management system. In this process, the reviewer views on the evaluation forms and full texts are assigned to the author(s) by the editor. Therefore, the reviewers doing review work for JAH are supposed to bear the ethical responsibilities listed below. Reviewers must;
• In order to assist the editor in decision-making procedures, agree to review only those works in their subject of expertise and review the manuscript sent them fairly, objectively and on time.
• Fill in the relevant ‘Reviewer Evaluation Form’ and ensure that any information related to her/his (the reviewer) identity has not been reflected to the form. Indicating her/his decision in respect of whether the manuscript should be accepted for publication or not along with the justification of this decision.
• Review the manuscript objectively and only in terms of its content and ensure that nationality, gender, religious and political beliefs, and economic apprehension do not influence the review.
• Rigorously review a manuscript in an unbiased and confidential manner and provide the relevant feedback to improve its quality.
• Review the manuscript in a constructive and kind tone, avoid making personal comments including hostility, slander and insult. If it is seen that the reviewers’ comments do not have a scientific quality, they might be invited to revise their assessment and feedback.
• Review only the content of a manuscript objectively.
• Protect the privacy of information provided them by the editor or the author(s) and destroy the manuscript after the review processes.
• Inform the editor of the journal if they think that they encounter a problem that may harm the double-blind review process and decline to review the manuscript during the review process.
• Dispose the manuscripts they have reviewed in accordance with the principle of confidentiality after the review process. Reviewers can use the final versions of the manuscripts they have reviewed only after publication.
• Be aware of the potential conflict of interests (financial, institutional, collaborative or those between the authors or related to other relationships), and warn the editor to withdraw the relevant manuscript from the review process.
Ethical Responsibilities of the Publisher
• Alike all other stakeholders, the publisher also has to obey the ethical principles and behave accordingly.
• The publisher bears all the responsibility to take precautions against scientific abuse, fraud and plagiarism.
• The publisher protects the intellectual property rights of all the articles published in JAH and holds the responsibility of keeping a record of each published product.
• The publisher accepts that the editor and editorial board entitled to make all the decisions related to reviewing, editorial and publication processes.
• All stakeholders should not hesitate to contact the publisher, if they see or recognise any unethical conduct or behaviour.
Plagiarism Policy
İntentionally or not, plagiarism means breaching of research ethics. Publishing a piece of work having similar or the same content with other studies without citing them is an ethical misconduct as well as being an offense against law. The editorial board has the rights to act in accordance with COPE’s rules and regulations in case of any claim related to a manuscript having plagiarism, referencing manipulation and/or data forgery. The authors are required to send their plagiarism reports to jah@aybu.edu.tr when they submit their manuscripts to JAH. The manuscripts having correspondences with other studies over 15% will be sent back to their authors without the initiation of the peer-review policy. The authors may submit their manuscripts after ensuring that the correspondence report of their respective manuscripts shows less than 25% similarity.
Misconduct of Scientific Research and Publication Ethics
• Plagiarism: Using other persons’ original thoughts, methods, data or products without citing the original sources or presenting another person’s work as one’s own partially or as a whole;
• Forgery: Using data that does not actually exists or being distorted;
• Distortion: Distorting, spoiling or corrupting research records or data; Claiming that some tools or materials have been used in the research that are not actually been utilised for the study. Altering, distorting or shaping the research results to fit in the interests of those persons or institutions supporting the research;
• Duplication: Using the same research data in more than one piece of work;
• Slicing: Dividing the results of a research into several pieces that violates its integrity of it and then publishing them as a separate research paper;
• Undeserved authorship: Indicating those persons as authors who did not actively contributed to the production of the manuscript or not indicating the ones that actually contributed to the study in question. Changing the order of the author names inappropriately and unnecessarily;
• Not indicating/including the relevant information about persons/institutions/organisations supporting the research and their support;
• Citing those dissertations/theses or papers that have not yet been submitted or published;
• Not following the ethical rules and regulations and/or not obtaining the necessary permissions before conducting a research involving human and/or animal subjects. Not respecting patients’ rights, giving harm to animals’ health and ecological balance;
• The misuse or abuse of resources, places, means and tools have been provided/allocated for the research;
• Proclaiming misleading/fallacious information related to scientific research and publications.
Transfer of the Copy Rights
• The manuscripts send to JAH for publication should not be published or send for publication elsewhere. During the process of manuscript submission, the authors are required to declare that it has not been published or submitted for publication in any other means. Otherwise, the authors will be responsible for the consequences.
• The authors are expected to transfer the copyrights to JAH while submitting their studies. This transfer agreement comes into force after the acceptance of the manuscript for publication. The published material may not be used elsewhere without the permission of the publisher.
• The authors may continue to have the rights of publishing the content of the manuscript in their personal websites, or in their institutions’ open access archives; they may produce copies of the manuscript for personal use, and they may use its content in their other works in par tor as a whole by citing it aptly.
• While using tables, figures and other kinds of verbal and/or visual materials published within the content of a manuscript either in paper-based or in electronic format, the authors are required to obtain permissions from the copy rights holder. The authors are obliged to legal, financial and penal responsibilities related to this issue.
• Authors planning to submit a manuscript to JAH are supposed to fill in “Copy Rights Transfer Agreement”. Then sign it with original signature, scan the signed form and send it back to JAH through email: jah@aybu.edu.tr .
Conflict of Interests
• Matters in which persons or groups benefit economically or personally may also cause conflict of interests. The reliability of scientific research and published papers is partly related to objectively handling of the conflicts of interests in the processes of planning, applying, writing, assessing, revising and publishing of them.
• Financial relations might include the most easily defined conflicts of interests, which may inevitably influence the reliability of the journal as well as the authors in a negative way. , These conflicts may arise from various issues including inter-personal relationships, academic competition or intellectual approaches. The authors may want to avoid from those sponsors, either commercial or non-profit ones, that may restrict access to all study data or propose to interfere the processes of data analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, publication and etc.
• In order to prevent conflict of interests, the editors may try not to assign certain people as reviewers of certain manuscripts submitted by some certain authors The editor giving the final decision about a manuscript should ensure that she/he does not have a personal or financial relation with the relevant author(s).
• In order to make the reviewing processes independent of any unethical conduct, the authors are expected to inform the editorial board in case of a potential conflict of interests.
• The editorial board of JAH promises to consider all these possibilities and strive to make the reviewing process as objective as possible.
Open Access Policy
Aiming to support the idea of accessing information through the easiest way, JAH adopts open access policy and supports the idea of requiring peer-reviewed journals to become open access appearing in Budapest Open Access Initiative signed on September 12, 2012.
Budapest Open Access Initiative defines the concept of “open access” as [peer reviewed works’] “… free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.” In thinking of sharing knowledge/information in the expansion of scientific developments, open-access policies promise a great potential for researchers and readers. Based on this perspective, JAH invites its readers to freely access and use its published works by referring their sources and authors. The readers do not need to obtain permission from the authors or the publisher.
Creative Commons
A Creative Commons licence means that a material with copyrights may freely be accessed and used by other parties. If an author wants to share her/his work with others, providing them to make changes or amendments in its content, she/he uses a CC licence.
All articles published JAH are licensed with “Creative Commons Attribution License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International CC BY-NC-ND)”. This license entitles all parties to use a scientific work a non-profit purpose under the condition of providing references.
Open access is an approach that eases the interdisciplinary communication and encourages cooperation among different disciplines. Therefore, JAH contributes to field of education and teacher training by providing more access to its articles and a more transparent review process.
The publication processes of JAH are executed in accordance with the manuals of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), National Information Standards Organization (NISO, Council of Science Editors (CSE) and European Association of Science Editors (EASE).
The Processes of Reviewing and Publishing Manuscripts
The reviewing process of the manuscripts sent to JAH proceeds following these steps:
1. The manuscript is reviewed by the Editor to see whether its aims, subject, content, and style of writing fits the requirements of JAH (Maximum 10 days). The manuscript approved by the Editor, send to Field Editor. Other manuscripts not approved by the Editor send back to their authors/owners for revision and resubmission
2. The examination/review of the Field Editor results in the decision of either sending the manuscript to reviewers or returning them back to their authors/owners for revision (Maximum 10 days).
3. The selection processes of referees based on expertise and experience in the relevant field. The referees are given 20 days to review a manuscript sent them.
4. If a reviewer thinks that she/he cannot complete the reviewing process within the given time, she/he can ask the Editor for extra time or let the Editor know that she/he is not being able to review the manuscript due to various reasons, such as the shortage of time. Doing these things help the Editor to assign new reviewers without losing too much time.
5. If a reviewer cannot review the manuscript assigned to her/him within the given scope of time, she/he is sent a reminder e-mail with an additional 10 days for completing the reviewing process. If she/he does not return the reviewed manuscripts within the additional time, that manuscript may withdraw from her/him. After then, it is assigned to another referee.
6. If there is a divergence of opinion between the two reviewers (one accepting the manuscript and the other rejecting it), the field editor examines the review reports, compares and contrasts the reviewers’ critics and viewpoints, as well as their reasoning to arrive at a decision.
7. If the Field Editor may not arrive at a decision after examining the reviewer reports, then the manuscript is assigned to a third reviewer.
8. The decision for a manuscript is supposed to be given within the first 90-120 days. Then the authors are informed about the decision. The accepted papers are to be published in the following issue of JAH.