Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Health Sciences Institute is a peer-reviewed journal committed to ensuring the highest standards of publication ethics. All parties involved in the act of publishing (editors, authors, reviewers and the publisher) have to agree upon standards of ethical behavior.

We state the following principles of Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement based on Elsevier recommendations and the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE

We encourage the best standards of publication ethics and take all possible measures against publication malpractices.

1. Editors’ responsibilities

The editors is responsible to evaluate manuscripts submitted to the journal on the basis of its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. The decision will be based on the manuscript’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.

Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher. Editors and editorial board members will also ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential under review.

The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo the blind review process by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field by not revealing the identity of the author(s) of a manuscript to the reviewers of that manuscript, and vice versa.


The editors must ensure that the comments and recommendations of the reviewers are sent to the author(s) in due time and that the manuscripts are returned to the Editor-in-Chief, who take the final decision to publish them or not. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

2. Authors and Authors responsibilities

Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to public sources of information to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data center), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism such as copying another's manuscript as the author's own, paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution) or claiming results from research conducted by others and in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behavior and unacceptable. The publication of some kinds of articles (such as clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided that certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Authorship is only limited to persons who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition and analysis of the study. All other persons who assist the authors in technical help, writing, and other general support but do not meet the criteria for authorship are not considered authors of the manuscript. Rather, these people should be acknowledged in the “Acknowledgements” section.

Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).

Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.

When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.

Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.

3. Reviewers' Responsibilities

Peer review assists editors and executive editorial board of the journal in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Reviewers must report to the editor of the journal if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s part.

Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on content without regard to the authors’ race, age, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, citizenship, political orientation or social class.

4. Publishers' Responsibilities

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive.

5. Readers' Responsibilities

Journal readers should refrain from violating the copyright of scientific articles. Not share or disseminate full-text files of articles on social media or any other online platform without the permission of the publisher.

DISCLAIMER

Neither the editors nor the Editorial Board are responsible for authors’ expressed opinions, views, and the contents of the published manuscripts in the journal. The originality, proofreading of manuscripts and errors are the sole responsibility of the individual authors. All manuscripts submitted for review and publication in Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Health Sciences Institute, go under double-blind reviews for authenticity, ethical issues, and useful contributions. Decisions of the reviewers are the only tool for publication in the journal and will be final.