Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

INVESTIGATION OF GOING-CONCERN MODIFIED AUDIT OPINIONS IN TERMS OF AUDITOR OPINIONS: EVIDENCE FROM BORSA ISTANBUL INDUSTRY COMPANIES

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 1, 58 - 86, 30.03.2017

Alpaslan Yaşar

Öz

This study investigates the determinants of going-concern modified audit opinions by using logistic regression method on the sample of industry firms listed on Istanbul Stock Exchange for the period of 2011-2015. The results shows that prior audit opinion and audit report lag are the significantly most effective variables on the identification of going-concern modified opinions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Audit opinions going-concern modified opinions logistic regression

Kaynakça

  • Adiloğlu, B. ve Vuran, B. 2011. “A Multicriterion Decision Support Methodology for Audit Reports of Distressed Firms in Turkey”, International Business&Economics Research Journal, 10 (12).
  • Akdoğan, N. ve Tenker, N. 2007. Finansal Tablolar ve Mali Analiz Teknikleri, Gazi Kitabevi, 11. Baskı, Ankara.
  • Aktaş, R., Doğanay, M. ve Yıldız, B. 2003. “Mali Başarısızlığın Öngörülmesi: İstatistiksel Yöntemlerle Yapay Sinir Ağı Karşılaştırması”, Ankara Üniversitesi S.B.F. Dergisi, 58 (4).
  • Caramanis, C. and Spathis, C. 2006. “Auditee and Audit Firm Characteristics as Determinants of Audit Qualifications Evidence from the Athens Stock Exchange”, Managerial Auditing Journal, 21 (9).
  • Becker, C.L., DeFond, M.L., Jiambalvo, J. and Subramanyam, K.R. 1998. “The Effect of Audit Quality on Earnings Management”, Contemporary Accounting Research, 15 (1).
  • Bell, T.B. and Tabor, R.H. 1991. “Empirical Analysis of Audit Uncertainity Qualifications”, Journal of Accounting Research, 29 (2).
  • Caramanis, C. and Spathis, C. 2006. “Auditee and Audit Firm Characteristics as Determinants of Audit Qualifications Evidence from the Athens Stock Exchange”,Managerial Auditing Journal, 21 (9).
  • Carcello, J.V., Hermanson, D.R. and Huss, H.F. 1995. “Temporal Changes in Bankruptcy-Related Reporting”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 14 (Fall).
  • Carcello, J.V. and Neal, T.L. 2000. “Audit Committee Composition and Auditor Reporting”, The Accounting Review, 75 (4).
  • Chan, K.H., Lin, K.Z. and Mo, P.L.-l. 2000. “A Political-Economic Analaysis of Auditor Reporting and Auditor Switches”, Review of Accounting Studies, 11 (1).
  • Chen, C.J.P., Chen, S. and Su, X. 2001. “Profitability Regulation, Earnings Management, and Modified Audit Opinions: Evidence from China”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 20 (2).
  • Citron, D.B. and Taffler, R.J. 2001. “Ethical Behavior in the U.K. Audit Profession: The Case of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy under Going-Concern Uncertainties”, Journal of Business Ethics, 29 (4).
  • Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. 2010. Sosyal Bilimler İçin Çok Değişkenli İstatistik, Pegem Akademi, Ankara.
  • Davidson, R.A. and Neu, D. 1993. “A Note on the Association between Audit Firm Size and Audit Quality”, Contemporary Accounting Research, 9 (2).
  • DeAngelo, L.E. 1981. “Auditor Size and Audit Quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics”, 3 (3).
  • Dopuch, N. and Simunic, D. 1982. “The Competition in Auditing: An Assessment”, Symposium on Auditing Research IV. Urbana: University of Illinosis.
  • DeFond, M.L., Wong, T.J. and Li, S. 2000. “The Impact of Improved Auditor Independence on Audit Market Concentration in Chinia”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 28 (3).
  • Dopuch, N., Holthausen, R. and Leftwish, R. 1987. “Predicting Audit Qualifications with Financial and Market Variables”, The Accounting Review, 62 (3).
  • Francis, J.R and Krishnan, J. 1999. “Accounting Accruals and Auditor Reporting Conservatism”, Contemporary Accounting Research, 16 (1).
  • Gaganis, C., Pasiouras, F. and Doumpos, M. 2007. “Probabilistic Neural Networks for the Identification of Qualified Audit Opinions”, Expert Systems with Applications, 32 (1).
  • Ireland, J.C. 2003. “An Empirical Investigation of Determinants of Audit Reports in the UK”, Journal of Business, Finance &Accounting, 30 (7).
  • Habib, A. 2013. “A Meta-Analysis of the Determinants of Modified Audit Opinion Decisions”, Managerial Auditing Journal, 28 (3).
  • Hudaib, M. and Cooke, T.E. 2005. “The Impact of Managing Director Changes and Financial Distress on Audit Qualification and Auditor Switching”, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 32 (9).
  • Keasey, K., Watson, R. and Wynarzcyk, P. 1988. “The Small Company Audit Qualification: A Preliminary Investigation”, Accounting and Business Research, 18 (72).
  • Kirkos, E., Spathis, C. and Manolopoulos, Y. 2007. “Data Mining Techniques for the Detection of Fraudulent Financial Statements”, Expert Systems with Applications, 32 (4).
  • Krishnan, J. and Krishnan, J. 1996. “The Role of Economic Trade-Offs in The Audit Opinion Decision: An Empirical Analysis”, Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 11 (4).
  • Küçüksavaş, N. 2012. Finansal Muhasebe (Genel Muhasebe). Beta Yayınları, 12. Baskı, İstanbul.
  • Laitinen, E. K. and Laitinen, T. 1998. “Qualified Audit Reports in Finland: Evidence from Large Companies”, European Accounting Review, 7 (4).
  • Lennox, C.S. 1999. “The Accuracy and Incremental Information Content of Audit Reports In Predicting Bankruptcy”, Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting, 26 (5-6).
  • Levitan, A.S. and Knoblett, J.A. 1985. “Indicators of Exceptions to the Going-Concern Assumption”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 5 (1).
  • Martens, D., Bruynseels, L., Willekens, M. and Vanthienen, J. 2008. “Predicting Going Concern Opinion With Data Mining”, Decision Support Systems, 45 (1).
  • McKeown, J. C., Mutchler, J.F. and Hopwood, W. (1991). “Towards an Explanation of Auditor Failure to Modify the Audit Opinions of Bankrupt Companies”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 10 (Supplement).
  • Menon, K. and Schwartz, K.B. 1987. “An Empirical Investigation of Audit Qualification Decisions in the Presence of Going-Concern Uncertainties”, Contemporary Accounting Research, 3 (2).
  • Mutchler, J. F. 1985. “A Multivariate Analysis of the Auditor’s Going Concern Opinion Decision”, Journal of Accounting Research, 23 (2).
  • Mutchler, J. F., Hopwood, W. and McKeown, J.C. 1997. “The Influence of Contrary Information and Mitigating Factors on Audit Opinion Decisions on Bankrupt Companies”, Journal of Accounting Research, 35 (2).
  • Nogler, G. 1995. “The Resolution of Auditor Going Concern Opinions”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 14 (2).
  • Pasiouras, F., Gaganis, Ch. Zopounidis, C. 2007. “Multicriteria Decision Support Methodologies for Auditing Decisions: The Case of Qualified Audit Reports in the UK”, European Journal of Operational Research, 180 (1).
  • Pourheydari, O., Nezamabadi-pour, H. and Aazami, Z. 2012. “Identifying Qualified Audit Opinions by Artifical Neural Networks”, African Journal of Business Management, 6 (44).
  • Reynolds, J.K. and Francis, J.R. 2001. “Do Size Matter? The Influence of Large Clients on Office-Level Auditor Reporting Decisions”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 30 (3).
  • Saif, S. M., Sarikhani, M. and Ebrahimi, F. 2012. “Finding Rules for Audit Opinions Prediction through Data Mining Methods”, European Online Journal of Natual and Social Sciences, 1 (2).
  • Sevilengül, O. 2011. Genel Muhasebe, Gazi Kitabevi, 16. Baskı, Ankara.
  • Spathis, Ch. 2002. “Detecting False Financial Statements Using Published Data:Some Evidence from Greece”, Managerial Auditing Journal, 17 (4).
  • Spathis, Ch. 2003. “Audit Qualification, Firm Litigaion, and Financial Information: An Empirical Analaysis in Greece”, International Journal of Auditing, 7 (1).
  • Spathis, Ch., Doumpos, M. and Zopounidis, C. 2003. “Using Client Performance Measures to Identify Pre-Engagement Factors Associated with Qualified Audit Reports in Greece”, The International Journal of Accounting, 38 (3).
  • Sundgren, S. 1998. “Auditor Choices And Auditor Reporting Practices: Evidence from Finnish Small Firms”, European Accounting Review, 7 (3).
  • T.C. Resmi Gazete (23 Ocak 2014. Sayı: 28891). İşletmenin Sürekliliği (BDS 570) Hakkında Türkiye Denetim Standartları Tebliği, No: 25, www.resmigazete.gov.tr
  • T.C. Resmi Gazete (18 Mart 2014. Sayı: 28945). Finansal Tablolara İlişkin Görüş Oluşturma ve Raporlama (BDS 700) Hakkında Türkiye Denetim Standartları Tebliği, No: 30, www.resmigazete.gov.tr
  • T.C. Resmi Gazete (18 Mart 2014. Sayı: 28945). Bağımsız Denetçi Raporunda Olumlu Görüş Dışında Bir Görüş Verilmesi (BDS 705) Hakkında Türkiye Denetim Standartları Tebliği, No: 31, www.resmigazete.gov.tr
  • Terzi, S., Atmaca, M. ve Öktem, B. 2016. “İşletmenin Sürekliliği Varsayımının Değerlendirilmesi: Borsa İstanbul (BİST) Sınai Endeks Örneği”, Marmara Üniversitesi Öneri Dergisi, 12 (45).
  • Valipour, H., Salehi, F. and Bahrami, M. 2013. “Predicting Audit Reports Using Meta-Heuristic Algorithms”, Journal of Distribution Science, 11 (6).
  • www.borsaistanbul.com (Erişim Tarihi: 01.01.2016).
  • www.kap.gov.tr (Erişim Tarihi: 01.01.2016).
  • Yaşar, A. (2016a). “Determinant Factors of Modified Audit Opinions in Turkey”, William Sayers (Ed.), Turkish Economy In A New Era: Selected Articles, 66-74, AGP Academic Research, London.
  • Yaşar, A. (2016b). “Olumlu Görüş Dışındaki Denetim Görüşlerinin Veri Madenciliği Yöntemleriyle Tahminine İlişkin Karar ve Birliktelik Kuralları”, Mali Çözüm Dergisi, 133 (Ocak-Şubat).

İŞLETMENİN SÜREKLİLİĞİNDE ORTAYA ÇIKAN BELİRSİZLİĞİN BAĞIMSIZ DENETİM RAPORLARINDAKİ DENETÇİ GÖRÜŞLERİ AÇISINDAN İNCELENMESİ: BİST’DE İŞLEM GÖREN SINAİ ŞİRKETLERİNE YÖNELİK BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 1, 58 - 86, 30.03.2017

Alpaslan Yaşar

Öz

Bu çalışma, Borsa İstanbul’da 2011-2015 döneminde işlem gören sınai işletmeler örnekleminde lojistik regresyon yöntemi kullanılarak, işletmenin sürekliliğine ilişkin belirsizlikler içeren olumlu görüş dışı denetim görüşünün belirleyicilerini araştırmaktadır. Çalışma sonuçları, önceki denetim görüşü ve denetim rapor gecikmesi değişkenlerinin işletmenin sürekliliğine ilişkin belirsizlik içeren olumlu olmayan denetim görüşlerinin belirlenmesinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı en etkili değişkenler olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Denetim görüşleri işletmenin sürekliliğine ilişkin olumlu görüş dışındaki denetim görüşleri lojistik regresyon

Kaynakça

  • Adiloğlu, B. ve Vuran, B. 2011. “A Multicriterion Decision Support Methodology for Audit Reports of Distressed Firms in Turkey”, International Business&Economics Research Journal, 10 (12).
  • Akdoğan, N. ve Tenker, N. 2007. Finansal Tablolar ve Mali Analiz Teknikleri, Gazi Kitabevi, 11. Baskı, Ankara.
  • Aktaş, R., Doğanay, M. ve Yıldız, B. 2003. “Mali Başarısızlığın Öngörülmesi: İstatistiksel Yöntemlerle Yapay Sinir Ağı Karşılaştırması”, Ankara Üniversitesi S.B.F. Dergisi, 58 (4).
  • Caramanis, C. and Spathis, C. 2006. “Auditee and Audit Firm Characteristics as Determinants of Audit Qualifications Evidence from the Athens Stock Exchange”, Managerial Auditing Journal, 21 (9).
  • Becker, C.L., DeFond, M.L., Jiambalvo, J. and Subramanyam, K.R. 1998. “The Effect of Audit Quality on Earnings Management”, Contemporary Accounting Research, 15 (1).
  • Bell, T.B. and Tabor, R.H. 1991. “Empirical Analysis of Audit Uncertainity Qualifications”, Journal of Accounting Research, 29 (2).
  • Caramanis, C. and Spathis, C. 2006. “Auditee and Audit Firm Characteristics as Determinants of Audit Qualifications Evidence from the Athens Stock Exchange”,Managerial Auditing Journal, 21 (9).
  • Carcello, J.V., Hermanson, D.R. and Huss, H.F. 1995. “Temporal Changes in Bankruptcy-Related Reporting”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 14 (Fall).
  • Carcello, J.V. and Neal, T.L. 2000. “Audit Committee Composition and Auditor Reporting”, The Accounting Review, 75 (4).
  • Chan, K.H., Lin, K.Z. and Mo, P.L.-l. 2000. “A Political-Economic Analaysis of Auditor Reporting and Auditor Switches”, Review of Accounting Studies, 11 (1).
  • Chen, C.J.P., Chen, S. and Su, X. 2001. “Profitability Regulation, Earnings Management, and Modified Audit Opinions: Evidence from China”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 20 (2).
  • Citron, D.B. and Taffler, R.J. 2001. “Ethical Behavior in the U.K. Audit Profession: The Case of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy under Going-Concern Uncertainties”, Journal of Business Ethics, 29 (4).
  • Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. 2010. Sosyal Bilimler İçin Çok Değişkenli İstatistik, Pegem Akademi, Ankara.
  • Davidson, R.A. and Neu, D. 1993. “A Note on the Association between Audit Firm Size and Audit Quality”, Contemporary Accounting Research, 9 (2).
  • DeAngelo, L.E. 1981. “Auditor Size and Audit Quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics”, 3 (3).
  • Dopuch, N. and Simunic, D. 1982. “The Competition in Auditing: An Assessment”, Symposium on Auditing Research IV. Urbana: University of Illinosis.
  • DeFond, M.L., Wong, T.J. and Li, S. 2000. “The Impact of Improved Auditor Independence on Audit Market Concentration in Chinia”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 28 (3).
  • Dopuch, N., Holthausen, R. and Leftwish, R. 1987. “Predicting Audit Qualifications with Financial and Market Variables”, The Accounting Review, 62 (3).
  • Francis, J.R and Krishnan, J. 1999. “Accounting Accruals and Auditor Reporting Conservatism”, Contemporary Accounting Research, 16 (1).
  • Gaganis, C., Pasiouras, F. and Doumpos, M. 2007. “Probabilistic Neural Networks for the Identification of Qualified Audit Opinions”, Expert Systems with Applications, 32 (1).
  • Ireland, J.C. 2003. “An Empirical Investigation of Determinants of Audit Reports in the UK”, Journal of Business, Finance &Accounting, 30 (7).
  • Habib, A. 2013. “A Meta-Analysis of the Determinants of Modified Audit Opinion Decisions”, Managerial Auditing Journal, 28 (3).
  • Hudaib, M. and Cooke, T.E. 2005. “The Impact of Managing Director Changes and Financial Distress on Audit Qualification and Auditor Switching”, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 32 (9).
  • Keasey, K., Watson, R. and Wynarzcyk, P. 1988. “The Small Company Audit Qualification: A Preliminary Investigation”, Accounting and Business Research, 18 (72).
  • Kirkos, E., Spathis, C. and Manolopoulos, Y. 2007. “Data Mining Techniques for the Detection of Fraudulent Financial Statements”, Expert Systems with Applications, 32 (4).
  • Krishnan, J. and Krishnan, J. 1996. “The Role of Economic Trade-Offs in The Audit Opinion Decision: An Empirical Analysis”, Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 11 (4).
  • Küçüksavaş, N. 2012. Finansal Muhasebe (Genel Muhasebe). Beta Yayınları, 12. Baskı, İstanbul.
  • Laitinen, E. K. and Laitinen, T. 1998. “Qualified Audit Reports in Finland: Evidence from Large Companies”, European Accounting Review, 7 (4).
  • Lennox, C.S. 1999. “The Accuracy and Incremental Information Content of Audit Reports In Predicting Bankruptcy”, Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting, 26 (5-6).
  • Levitan, A.S. and Knoblett, J.A. 1985. “Indicators of Exceptions to the Going-Concern Assumption”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 5 (1).
  • Martens, D., Bruynseels, L., Willekens, M. and Vanthienen, J. 2008. “Predicting Going Concern Opinion With Data Mining”, Decision Support Systems, 45 (1).
  • McKeown, J. C., Mutchler, J.F. and Hopwood, W. (1991). “Towards an Explanation of Auditor Failure to Modify the Audit Opinions of Bankrupt Companies”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 10 (Supplement).
  • Menon, K. and Schwartz, K.B. 1987. “An Empirical Investigation of Audit Qualification Decisions in the Presence of Going-Concern Uncertainties”, Contemporary Accounting Research, 3 (2).
  • Mutchler, J. F. 1985. “A Multivariate Analysis of the Auditor’s Going Concern Opinion Decision”, Journal of Accounting Research, 23 (2).
  • Mutchler, J. F., Hopwood, W. and McKeown, J.C. 1997. “The Influence of Contrary Information and Mitigating Factors on Audit Opinion Decisions on Bankrupt Companies”, Journal of Accounting Research, 35 (2).
  • Nogler, G. 1995. “The Resolution of Auditor Going Concern Opinions”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 14 (2).
  • Pasiouras, F., Gaganis, Ch. Zopounidis, C. 2007. “Multicriteria Decision Support Methodologies for Auditing Decisions: The Case of Qualified Audit Reports in the UK”, European Journal of Operational Research, 180 (1).
  • Pourheydari, O., Nezamabadi-pour, H. and Aazami, Z. 2012. “Identifying Qualified Audit Opinions by Artifical Neural Networks”, African Journal of Business Management, 6 (44).
  • Reynolds, J.K. and Francis, J.R. 2001. “Do Size Matter? The Influence of Large Clients on Office-Level Auditor Reporting Decisions”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 30 (3).
  • Saif, S. M., Sarikhani, M. and Ebrahimi, F. 2012. “Finding Rules for Audit Opinions Prediction through Data Mining Methods”, European Online Journal of Natual and Social Sciences, 1 (2).
  • Sevilengül, O. 2011. Genel Muhasebe, Gazi Kitabevi, 16. Baskı, Ankara.
  • Spathis, Ch. 2002. “Detecting False Financial Statements Using Published Data:Some Evidence from Greece”, Managerial Auditing Journal, 17 (4).
  • Spathis, Ch. 2003. “Audit Qualification, Firm Litigaion, and Financial Information: An Empirical Analaysis in Greece”, International Journal of Auditing, 7 (1).
  • Spathis, Ch., Doumpos, M. and Zopounidis, C. 2003. “Using Client Performance Measures to Identify Pre-Engagement Factors Associated with Qualified Audit Reports in Greece”, The International Journal of Accounting, 38 (3).
  • Sundgren, S. 1998. “Auditor Choices And Auditor Reporting Practices: Evidence from Finnish Small Firms”, European Accounting Review, 7 (3).
  • T.C. Resmi Gazete (23 Ocak 2014. Sayı: 28891). İşletmenin Sürekliliği (BDS 570) Hakkında Türkiye Denetim Standartları Tebliği, No: 25, www.resmigazete.gov.tr
  • T.C. Resmi Gazete (18 Mart 2014. Sayı: 28945). Finansal Tablolara İlişkin Görüş Oluşturma ve Raporlama (BDS 700) Hakkında Türkiye Denetim Standartları Tebliği, No: 30, www.resmigazete.gov.tr
  • T.C. Resmi Gazete (18 Mart 2014. Sayı: 28945). Bağımsız Denetçi Raporunda Olumlu Görüş Dışında Bir Görüş Verilmesi (BDS 705) Hakkında Türkiye Denetim Standartları Tebliği, No: 31, www.resmigazete.gov.tr
  • Terzi, S., Atmaca, M. ve Öktem, B. 2016. “İşletmenin Sürekliliği Varsayımının Değerlendirilmesi: Borsa İstanbul (BİST) Sınai Endeks Örneği”, Marmara Üniversitesi Öneri Dergisi, 12 (45).
  • Valipour, H., Salehi, F. and Bahrami, M. 2013. “Predicting Audit Reports Using Meta-Heuristic Algorithms”, Journal of Distribution Science, 11 (6).
  • www.borsaistanbul.com (Erişim Tarihi: 01.01.2016).
  • www.kap.gov.tr (Erişim Tarihi: 01.01.2016).
  • Yaşar, A. (2016a). “Determinant Factors of Modified Audit Opinions in Turkey”, William Sayers (Ed.), Turkish Economy In A New Era: Selected Articles, 66-74, AGP Academic Research, London.
  • Yaşar, A. (2016b). “Olumlu Görüş Dışındaki Denetim Görüşlerinin Veri Madenciliği Yöntemleriyle Tahminine İlişkin Karar ve Birliktelik Kuralları”, Mali Çözüm Dergisi, 133 (Ocak-Şubat).
Toplam 54 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular İşletme
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Alpaslan Yaşar Bu kişi benim

Gönderilme Tarihi 24 Ocak 2017
Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Mart 2017
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2017 Cilt: 19 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Yaşar, A. (2017). İŞLETMENİN SÜREKLİLİĞİNDE ORTAYA ÇIKAN BELİRSİZLİĞİN BAĞIMSIZ DENETİM RAPORLARINDAKİ DENETÇİ GÖRÜŞLERİ AÇISINDAN İNCELENMESİ: BİST’DE İŞLEM GÖREN SINAİ ŞİRKETLERİNE YÖNELİK BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 19(1), 58-86.

Yazarlık

MBDD, araştırma makalelerine yapılan katkıların adil şekilde tanınmasını sağlamak amacıyla COPE Yazarlık Kılavuzuna uymaktadır (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/discussion-document/authorship). Yazarlık, hem hak hem de sorumluluk taşır; bu nedenle, listelenen tüm yazarların araştırmaya önemli katkılarda bulunmuş olması gerekmektedir.

Birden fazla yazarlı çalışmalarda, Yazar Katkıları bölümü, sonuç bölümünden sonra ve kaynakçadan önce yer almalıdır. Makalenin hangi bölümlerine hangi yazarın katkı sağladığını belirtmek için yazarların isim baş harfleri ve soyadları kullanılmalıdır. Detaylı bilgiye "Makale Gönderim Kontrol Listesi" düğmesine tıklayarak ulaşılabilir. Ayrıca, yazarlar, yazarlık kriterlerini karşılamayan ancak çalışmaya katkı sağlayan kişileri teşekkür bölümünde belirtebilirler.

Yazarlar araştırmanın tasarım ve uygulanmasında üretilen Yapay Zekâ (YZ) ve YZ destekli araçların kullanımını açıklamak zorundadırlar. Bu tür kullanımlar, makalenin yöntem bölümünde belirtilmelidir. YZ kullanımının belirtilmesi, makalenin yayımlanmasını engellemez; aksine, araştırmanın şeffaf bir şekilde sunulmasını sağlar.