Publication Ethics

The ethical duties and responsibilities listed below have been prepared by taking into account the guidelines and policies published by the open access Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)  and The Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI).

Ethical Obligations of Reviewers

• Reviewers should reject to review the studies that are not related to their expertise or that they think they will be technically inadequate in review process.

• Reviewers should respect confidentiality in article review. Before the article is been published, the referee should not discuss the content of the article with other researchers.

• Unpublished material described in a paper under review should not be cited by the referee without the express written consent of the author through the editor.

• Information or ideas obtained in article evaluation should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal advantage.

• Manuscripts should be objectively reviewed in accordance with the referee's expertise in the domain.

• An article's contribution to research in its field, strong argumentation, and acceptability of the evidence presented are important factors in reviewing process. Personal opinions devoid of scientific basis should not be included in the article review process.

• If the reviewer realizes that she/he is somehow involved in the article after receiving the article, or that there is a conflict of interest, he should notify the editor and withdraw from the review. Conflicts of interest may arise due to a close personal/commercial/corporate relationship, competition, cooperation, or another kind of relationship with any of the authors associated with the article under review, companies, or institutions supporting the article.

• Plagiarism control is the responsibility of the editor. However, if the reviewer notices a significant similarity or duplication between the article he has reviewed and other published works, he should inform the editor.

Ethical Obligations of Editors

• All manuscripts submitted for publication are sent to at least two reviewers after the preliminary evaluation of the responsible editor.

• Checking for plagiarism is the responsibility of the editor during the pre-evaluation process.

• Editors are responsible for concealing the identities of the author(s) and reviewers from each other during the evaluation process.

• Editors should not cite unpublished material in a submitted article without the permission of the author.

• Information or ideas obtained in the evaluation should be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

• After the peer-review, the decision to publish is objectively taken by the editor.

• Factors that influence the publication decision of an article are its contribution to existing research in the field, its strong argumentation, and the reliability of the evidence presented

• The manuscript that refused by two reviewers will not evaluate for publication once again.

• If authorized Editors discover that they have a conflict of interest or personal interest in publishing an article, they must withdraw themselves from the review process and transfer the review to another editor.

Ethical Obligations of Authors

• Manuscripts submitted for publication in JAVStudies must be the author(s) original work, must not be simultaneously reviewed elsewhere, and must not have been previously published in any language.

• Names of authors in articles should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the article. Academicians must meet all three of the following conditions specified by the Publication Ethics Committee (COPE) in order to be included as authors in the article: 1) Make significant contributions to the interpretation or analysis of the data; 2) Drafting or critical review of the article so that it has significant intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the article to be published. In addition, one of the authors should be specified as the corresponding author.

• Basic data should be correctly included in the article. It is unacceptable to add non-existent data as if it exists or not show inaccurate results.

• Conclusions should be based on the evidence presented in the article, not personal opinion.

• If significant errors/inaccuracies are discovered after an article has been submitted, the author should contact the editor and make appropriate corrections or withdraw the article without delay.

• The author(s) should interpret ideas or results previously published elsewhere in their own words, should cite these works, and cite these works in the bibliography section of the article. If exactly the same sentences are used, they are quoted in quotation marks, provided that they are cited. Using the ideas of other researchers in the article without attribution means plagiarism. If the study is derived from a dissertation or congress information belonging to the author, this should be clearly stated in the article.

• The author is expected to comply with international standards and research protocols in studies using human and/or animal subjects. Therefore, such studies should be approved by a relevant ethics committee and this document should be sent to the editorial office. The name of the ratifying body, the date and the number of decisions should be indicated in the article.

• If there is an institution that will be affected by the author(s) publication, it must be stated.
• If the author(s) benefited from financial resources in the study, it should be stated in the acknowledgment section (with official document information).