Ethical Principles

Ethical Principles

The publication processes of the SEBİLÜRREŞAD AKADEMİ Journal of Social Sciences are conducted with the aim of producing and disseminating scholarly knowledge in an impartial, reliable, transparent, and ethically responsible manner.

The Journal expects all stakeholders involved in the publication process, including authors, reviewers, editors, field editors, editorial board members, and the publisher, to act in accordance with the principles of academic integrity, impartiality, confidentiality, accountability, conflict-of-interest management, and publication ethics.

1. Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

1.1. Originality, Plagiarism, and Similarity Screening

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal must be original.

Ideas, statements, data, methods, images, tables, figures, maps, and similar materials belonging to others must be used with appropriate attribution. Plagiarism, excessive textual similarity, unattributed quotation, and the presentation of another person’s work as one’s own are regarded as ethical violations.

The reuse of material from an author’s previously published works without appropriate citation may also be considered self-plagiarism.

A similarity report must be generated through Turnitin for all manuscripts submitted to the Journal. Authors are required to upload a current Turnitin similarity report to the submission system together with the manuscript file. The Editorial Office may generate a new Turnitin similarity report whenever deemed necessary.

Excluding the reference list, the overall similarity rate of the manuscript must not exceed 25%. Manuscripts with a similarity rate above 25% will not be taken into evaluation and will be returned to the author.

A similarity rate below 25% does not, by itself, indicate that the manuscript is free from ethical violations. Extensive overlap with a single source, uncited matches, consecutive passages of similar wording, self-plagiarism, and any other issue that may undermine the originality of the manuscript will be evaluated separately.

Even where the similarity rate is below 25%, the Editorial Office may reject a manuscript suspected of plagiarism or another ethical violation, or may request an explanation or revision from the authors.

The Turnitin similarity report is used as a supporting instrument in the editorial evaluation process. The final decision rests with the Editorial Office.

1.2. Duplicate Publication and Simultaneous Submission

The same manuscript may not be submitted simultaneously to more than one journal or publication outlet. Submission to the SEBİLÜRREŞAD AKADEMİ Journal of Social Sciences of a manuscript that is already under consideration by another journal is regarded as an ethical violation.

At the time of submission, authors must declare that the manuscript has not previously been published and is not under consideration by another journal.

If it is determined that the manuscript has been submitted simultaneously to another journal, the evaluation process will be terminated immediately and the manuscript will be rejected.

If simultaneous submission or duplicate publication is identified after publication, appropriate ethical procedures may be initiated, including correction, retraction, and notification of the relevant institutions.

A previously published work may not be submitted to the Journal as a new and original manuscript.

Studies that substantially repeat the same data, findings, or text, as well as the unjustified division of a single study into multiple publications, may be regarded as duplicate publication unless the earlier publications are clearly cited and the scientific justification is explicitly stated.

If the manuscript has previously appeared in the form of a thesis, preprint, conference paper, conference presentation, project report, or similar version, this must be clearly disclosed to the Editorial Office at the time of submission.

1.3. Authorship and Contribution

Authorship must be determined on the basis of meaningful scholarly contribution to the study.

The inclusion of individuals who have made no scientific or academic contribution, the exclusion of individuals who have contributed, honorary authorship, and ghost authorship are unethical.

The order of authors, the corresponding author, and the contribution of each author must be finalised before submission.

Requests to add or remove an author or to alter the order of authors after the evaluation process has begun must be submitted to the Editorial Office together with a reasoned explanation and the written approval of all authors. The Editorial Office reserves the right to reject such requests where appropriate.

All authors share responsibility for the content and accuracy of the manuscript.

1.4. Data Integrity and Scholarly Transparency

Data fabrication, data falsification, manipulation of results, selective reporting, misleading visual presentation, and misrepresentation of findings constitute ethical violations.

The methods, data collection procedures, analyses, and findings of the study must be presented with sufficient clarity to support scholarly evaluation and, where applicable, reproducibility.

Authors must securely retain the data underlying the research in accordance with applicable legislation, ethics committee decisions, and personal data protection obligations.

For the purposes of ethical review or scholarly verification, the Editorial Office may request anonymised raw data, analysis outputs, permission documents, or other supporting materials.

Where data cannot be shared, the legal, ethical, or technical reason must be explained.

1.5. Ethics Committee Approval, Institutional Permissions, and Participants’ Rights

In studies requiring ethics committee approval, the necessary approval and institutional permissions must be obtained before the research begins.

For studies requiring ethics committee approval, the name of the committee, the date of the decision, and the decision or approval number must be clearly stated in the methodology section of the manuscript and in the declaration section designated by the Journal.

Research involving human participants must comply with the principles of informed voluntary consent, privacy, confidentiality, and personal data protection.

In studies involving children, persons with disabilities, migrants, disadvantaged communities, and other vulnerable groups, protective measures, legal representative permissions, and specific ethical requirements must be clearly stated.

Where ethics committee approval is not required, this should be declared with justification where deemed necessary.

1.6. Conflict of Interest and Funding

Authors must disclose all financial, institutional, professional, and personal relationships that may influence the preparation, evaluation, or interpretation of the study.

Where the study has received support from an institution, organisation, project, or funding body, the source of funding and, where applicable, the project number must be stated.

Where no conflict of interest exists, the manuscript must include a statement such as: “The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.”

1.7. Third-Party Materials and Copyright

Necessary permissions must be obtained for the use of third-party materials, including images, scales, questionnaires, tables, figures, maps, photographs, text excerpts, measurement instruments, and similar content, and all relevant sources must be cited appropriately.

Authors are responsible for compliance with copyright law, licensing terms, and permission requirements.

Authors bear responsibility for content that infringes copyright, is used without permission, or is reproduced unlawfully.

1.8. Citation and Referencing Ethics

Authors must cite only sources that are directly relevant to the study and scientifically necessary.

Unnecessary citations intended to artificially increase citation counts, reciprocal citation arrangements, the use of sources out of context, and citation of sources that have not been consulted are unethical.

Where an opinion, item of information, or finding is taken from a secondary source, authors should, wherever possible, consult and cite the original source.

1.9. Use of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Tools

Where artificial intelligence-assisted tools have been used in the preparation of the manuscript, the scope of their use must be disclosed clearly and transparently.

The use of artificial intelligence tools for language editing, translation, summarisation, data analysis, coding, image generation, or any other purpose must be declared in the appropriate section of the manuscript.

Artificial intelligence tools may not be listed as authors.

Authors remain responsible for the scientific accuracy, originality, reliability of sources, ethical compliance, and verification of all content included in the manuscript.

Authors must not upload confidential, personal, or sensitive research data to artificial intelligence systems whose data security has not been clearly guaranteed.

1.10. Notification of Errors, Corrections, and Retractions

Authors must promptly inform the Editorial Office if they become aware of a significant error, inaccuracy, or ethical issue in a manuscript that has been published or is under evaluation.

Authors are required to cooperate with the Editorial Office in correction, clarification, updating, or retraction procedures.

Where retraction of a manuscript is requested, the request must be submitted to the Editorial Office with a reasoned explanation and the approval of all authors. Retraction requests are evaluated by the Editorial Office in accordance with publication ethics principles.

2. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

2.1. Confidentiality

The review invitation, manuscript content, author information, supplementary documents, and all information relating to the evaluation process are confidential.

Reviewers may not share, reproduce, distribute, or use the manuscripts they evaluate for personal purposes.

After completion of the review, manuscript files and related documents may not be retained without authorisation.

2.2. Competence and Impartiality

Reviewers should accept only manuscripts that fall within their areas of expertise and that they are able to evaluate within the specified time frame.

Reviews must be based solely on scholarly criteria and must be independent of the authors’ identity, institution, nationality, gender, religion, political opinion, academic title, or other personal characteristics.

Reviewers may not assess findings negatively merely because they conflict with their own personal views.

2.3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline a review where their impartiality may be affected by circumstances such as close collaboration with the authors, co-authorship, direct employment at the same institution, a supervisor-student relationship, financial ties, personal closeness, hostility, or disagreement.

The Editorial Office must be informed without delay of any potential conflict of interest.

2.4. Constructive and Respectful Language

Review reports must be clear, reasoned, objective, and based on scholarly criteria.

Personal, derogatory, sarcastic, accusatory, or offensive language must be avoided.

Criticism and recommendations should aim to improve the manuscript and provide constructive guidance to the authors.

2.5. Timely Evaluation

Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers must consider whether they can complete the evaluation within the allotted period.

Accepted reviews must be completed within the specified time.

Where a reviewer realises that the evaluation cannot be completed on time, the Editorial Office must be informed promptly.

2.6. Reporting Suspected Ethical Violations

Reviewers must inform the Editorial Office if they identify suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, lack of ethics committee approval, copyright infringement, citation manipulation, or any other ethical concern.

Such concerns should, where possible, be stated with concrete justification in the “Comments to the Editor” section, and direct accusations against the authors should be avoided.

2.7. Citation Requests

Reviewers may recommend the inclusion of references only where they are scientifically necessary and directly relevant to the manuscript.

It is unethical for reviewers to request unnecessary citations to their own publications or to a particular journal.

2.8. Use of Artificial Intelligence and Confidentiality

Reviewers may not upload unpublished manuscripts, author information, data, or supplementary files provided for evaluation to artificial intelligence systems whose confidentiality safeguards have not been guaranteed.

Where artificial intelligence-assisted tools are used in the evaluation process, human oversight must be maintained.

The reviewer remains responsible for the accuracy, impartiality, and content of the review report. Review reports generated by artificial intelligence must not be used without verification.

3. Ethical Responsibilities of Editors and Field Editors

3.1. Editorial Independence and Impartial Decision-Making

Editorial decisions must be based on the scholarly quality, originality, methodological adequacy, relevance, and compatibility of the manuscript with the aims and scope of the Journal.

The authors’ race, ethnicity, gender, religion, political opinion, citizenship, institution, country, academic title, or other personal characteristics must not influence editorial decisions.

Editors must act independently of commercial, political, institutional, or personal pressure.

3.2. Confidentiality and Protection of Personal Data

Submitted manuscripts and all information relating to the evaluation process must be kept confidential.

Author and reviewer information must be used only to the extent required by the publication process.

Editors may not use unpublished information or data obtained through the editorial process in their own research.

Personal data must be processed in accordance with applicable legislation and the Journal’s privacy policy.

3.3. Management of Conflicts of Interest

Editors and field editors must withdraw from the evaluation of any manuscript where a conflict of interest may arise due to close collaboration with an author, co-authorship, direct employment at the same institution, a supervisory relationship, financial ties, or personal closeness.

In such cases, the process must be managed by another editor who has no conflict of interest.

3.4. Quality of the Peer Review Process

Editors are responsible for selecting reviewers whose expertise is appropriate to the subject matter and methodology of the manuscript.

Reviewer selection must take account of impartiality, expertise, conflict of interest, and the quality of the evaluation.

Editors must monitor the review process, assess the scholarly and ethical quality of review reports, and appoint additional reviewers where necessary.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final publication decision rests with the Editorial Office.

3.5. Handling Ethical Misconduct

Where there is suspicion of plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, absence of ethics committee approval, copyright infringement, undisclosed conflict of interest, authorship misconduct, citation manipulation, or any similar ethical issue, the Editorial Office must initiate the necessary inquiry.

The Editorial Office may request explanations, raw data, ethics committee documents, permission letters, or other supporting evidence from the authors.

Ethical investigations must be conducted in accordance with the principles of impartiality, confidentiality, the right to respond, and evidentiary accountability.

Where necessary, relevant institutions, research organisations, or competent authorities may be informed.

3.6. Corrections, Retractions, and Post-Publication Procedures

Where an error that does not affect the scientific conclusions of a published work is identified, a correction may be issued.

Where a serious error or ethical violation undermines the integrity of the work, the article may be retracted.

Where an investigation is ongoing and no definitive conclusion has yet been reached, an expression of concern may be published.

Correction, retraction, and expression-of-concern notices must be published in a reasoned, transparent, and accessible manner.

The scholarly record of a retracted article must be preserved, and the reason for the retraction must be clearly stated.

3.7. Scholarly Record and Archiving

The Editorial Office must take appropriate archiving measures to preserve the integrity, permanent accessibility, and technical sustainability of published content.

No unauthorised or undisclosed alteration may be made to the published version of an article.

Post-publication corrections, updates, and retractions must be implemented while preserving the integrity of the scholarly record.

3.8. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Editors may not upload unpublished manuscripts, personal data, reviewer reports, or confidential documents to artificial intelligence systems whose security has not been clearly ensured.

Editorial assessment and final decision-making responsibility may not be delegated to artificial intelligence systems.

Even where artificial intelligence-assisted tools are used, the relevant editor remains fully responsible for all evaluations and decisions.

4. Ethical Responsibilities of the Publisher

4.1. Protection of Editorial Independence

The publisher must safeguard the independence of editorial decisions from commercial, political, institutional, or personal influence.

The publisher must not interfere with acceptance or rejection decisions outside the scholarly evaluation process.

4.2. Technical and Institutional Sustainability

The publisher must take the necessary measures to ensure the sustainability of the Journal’s technical infrastructure, online accessibility, digital security, and archiving systems.

Appropriate technical and administrative safeguards must be implemented to protect personal data and records relating to the publication process.

4.3. Cooperation in Ethical Procedures

The publisher must cooperate with the Editorial Office in cases involving ethical misconduct, corrections, retractions, complaints, appeals, and legal disputes.

Editorial independence and the principles of scholarly evaluation must be respected throughout such procedures.

5. Complaints and Appeals

Authors, reviewers, and readers may submit complaints concerning the editorial process, peer review, alleged ethical misconduct, or published content to the Editorial Office, together with their reasons and any supporting documentation.

Appeals against rejection decisions must be based on an alleged scientific or procedural error in the decision. Mere disagreement with the decision is not sufficient grounds for appeal.

As far as possible, complaints and appeals should be evaluated by an editor or editorial board member who was not responsible for the original decision and who has no conflict of interest.

Where appropriate, the parties must be given the opportunity to provide an explanation or response.

The outcome of the evaluation must be communicated to the relevant parties in a reasoned manner.

Allegations of ethical misconduct must be handled in accordance with the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, the right to respond, and evidentiary accountability.

6. Ethical Violations and Sanctions

The Journal regards plagiarism, fabrication, data falsification, duplicate publication, simultaneous submission, authorship misconduct, copyright infringement, concealment of conflicts of interest, irregularities concerning ethics committee documentation, citation manipulation, and attempts to improperly influence the peer review process as ethical violations.

Depending on the nature of the ethical violation, one or more of the following actions may be taken:

• Suspension of the manuscript evaluation process,

• Rejection of the manuscript,

• Request for an explanation or supporting documentation from the authors,

• Publication of a correction for a published article,

• Publication of an expression of concern,

• Retraction of the article,

• Notification of the relevant institution or competent authority,

• Refusal to consider new submissions from the author or authors for a specified period.

Each measure must be proportionate to the nature of the case and applied on the basis of documented evidence and a reasoned decision.

7. Basis

These ethical principles have been prepared with reference to the Core Practices, guidelines, and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) concerning publication ethics, peer review, authorship, corrections, and retractions.

Reference to COPE guidelines does not imply that the Journal is a member of COPE or has been accredited by COPE.