Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

Publication Ethics

All stakeholders (authors, readers and researchers, publishers, reviewers and editors) must comply with the rules for ethical principles in all kinds of publication processes applied in Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Science and Engineering (AKU J.SCI.ENG). Our journal and all its boards have adopted the principles of the Council of Higher Education Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive, the Council of Higher Education Ethical Behavior Principles, and the guidelines and policies published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) on ethical duties and responsibilities.

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

The author(s) who submit a manuscript to our journal must comply with the following ethical responsibilities;
• The work submitted by the author(s) is expected to be original. If the author(s) benefit or quote from other studies, they must quote and/or cite completely and accurately. Authors should ensure that they have written completely original works, and if authors have used the works and/or words of others, this has been properly quoted, and permission has been obtained where necessary.
• Information obtained privately from conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties should not be used or reported without express written permission from the source.
• All forms of plagiarism constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. When such a situation is detected, necessary actions are initiated. If it is found that the author(s) of the article are using falsified and fabricated data, the institution where these authors work will be reported, and the article will be rejected.
• Those who do not contribute to the content of the article in the preparation of the submitted draft article/research study should not be specified as authors. If others have participated in certain formal aspects of the article (e.g., language editing, technical drawings, layouts, or text/graphic arrangements), the relevant people should be mentioned in the acknowledgments section.
• The corresponding author should ensure that all eligible co-authors are included and that ineligible authors are not included in the manuscript. It is also responsible for ensuring that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to submit it for publication.
• Authors are responsible for carefully reviewing the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscripts and providing the final list of authors at the time of submission. In exceptional cases, the Editor (at his/her own discretion) considers requests to add, delete, or rearrange authors after the article has been submitted. In such a case, the corresponding author should clearly state his request to the Editor. In addition, a document must be submitted showing that all authors agree to such addition, removal, or rearrangement.
• Authors collectively take responsibility for the work. Each author is responsible for ensuring that questions about the accuracy or completeness of any part of the work are adequately investigated and resolved.
• All studies submitted for publication should be disclosed/specified, if any, that may constitute a conflict of interest.
• At any stage of the pre-evaluation or peer-review processes, raw data regarding the results/coding/analyses specified in their articles, etc., may be requested from the author(s). Upon request, the author(s) should be ready to present the expected data and information to the editorial board or Editors.
• The author(s) must have a document showing that they have the rights to use the data used, the necessary permissions for the research/analysis, or the consent of the experimental subjects.
• If the author(s) notice any error or mistake in their published, early view, or under-review work, they are obliged to inform and collaborate with the journal editor, field editor, editorial assistant, or publisher for correction or withdrawal processes.
• Authors cannot have their study in the application process of more than one journal at the same time.
• Articles/studies that have been previously published in any language or whose application process is ongoing are not evaluated for publication in our journal. If there is an ongoing application process, the application process to our journal can be started following the completion of the previous application.
• A study published in another journal cannot be sent to our journal.
• Authors cannot send an article/research study they have sent to Afyon Kocatepe University FMBD Journal to another journal.
• If the text/figures/charts/coding/data published in another medium are used in the submitted article, the author is responsible for obtaining the relevant permissions (if necessary) from the previous publishing house.
• For all changes to be made in the articles, permission from both the author and the publisher is obtained.
• Authors must upload the "signed cover letter" and "signed copyright transfer form" together with the article to the system during the first registration via the online system (dergipark system). Unsigned applications are returned.
• In the signed cover letter sent with the article, it should be stated whether any part of the information in the article (including abstract studies) has been previously published electronically/in print or sent for evaluation. In such a case, the author must submit documents showing that he owns the copyright.
• Authors are required to provide detailed information regarding studies that include the same data planned/presented/published at events such as congresses/conferences/symposiums. Otherwise, the author(s) are responsible for this.
• In accordance with the journal's publication policies, studies published as full-text papers in congresses/symposiums/conferences are not accepted.
• Although the studies previously presented as abstracts are accepted, the articles derived from the "Abstract Papers" should be given as a footnote as "This article is published in the "..............................." held in the City/Country between the dates of the Day/Month/Year. It is the improved version of the paper titled "........", which was presented as an oral presentation in the event and the abstract of which was published in the congress/conference/symposium abstract book. The abstract should be developed to a certain extent and turned into an article, and the abstracts should not be the same.
• In addition, the necessary permissions must be obtained from the relevant committees of the relevant event (congress, symposium, conference, etc.) for the papers published only as abstracts.
• Similarity limits are observed for articles derived from postgraduate theses. During the writing of the article, it should be avoided to take the thesis texts/sections directly or to copy/paste.
• In publications derived from postgraduate theses, it should be noted in the footnote as follows: "This study is derived from the master's/doctoral thesis titled '...................................................' and numbered 123456 completed by……………………………………….under the supervision of Prof./Assoc. Prof./Assist. Prof. …………………………….... on .............................(date) (Thesis number will be obtained from the Council of Higher Education thesis center)."
• Full-text studies with DOI numbers, etc., are not accepted. The author is responsible for copyright problems that may occur in case of duplicate publication, DOI address, or citation address conflict that may occur due to applications made without explanation and detailed information.
• The articles published in the journal become the property of the journal, and the copyright of the articles is taken in the name of "Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Science and Engineering". Unless the withdrawal request is approved, they cannot submit their work to another journal for evaluation.
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
• Peer review can assist the author in improving the manuscript through editorial communication with the author and assist the Editor in making editorial decisions. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and is central to the scientific method. In addition to the specific ethics-related duties described below, reviewers are generally expected to treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated and to adhere to good peer review etiquette.
• Reviewers should evaluate the work they agree to evaluate in a timely manner.
• A reviewer who feels unqualified/incompetent to review the research reported in a manuscript or foresees that it will be impossible to review it quickly should notify the Editor and refuse to participate in the review process with an appropriate response. Reviewers should only agree to evaluate the work related to their field of expertise.
• All manuscripts evaluated in reviewing duties should be considered confidential documents. Reviewers should not share information about the article with anyone or contact the authors directly. In accordance with the principle of confidentiality, they should destroy the studies and forms they have examined after the evaluation process. They can only use the final versions of the studies they have reviewed by citing them only after they are published.
• Unpublished materials in a reviewed article should not be used in a reviewer's research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal advantage.
• Reviewers should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it to a generative AI tool, as this may violate authors' privacy and property rights and violate data privacy rights where the manuscript contains personally identifiable information. This confidentiality clause also covers the peer review report, as it may contain confidential information about the article and/or authors. Therefore, reviewers should not upload peer review reports to an AI tool, even if it is only for the purpose of improving language and readability.
• A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the manuscript and bring them to the attention of the Editor, including any significant similarities or overlaps between the reviewed manuscript and other published manuscripts of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has already been reported must be accompanied by the relevant citation.
• Reviews should be done objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal biases they may have and take this into account when reviewing a manuscript. They should evaluate with impartiality and confidentiality.
• The evaluation should be made objectively only in relation to the content of the study. Nationality, gender, religious beliefs, political beliefs, and commercial concerns should not be allowed to influence the evaluation.
• Reviewers should clearly express their views with supporting arguments.
• Reviewers evaluations are expected to be made in constructive and courteous language. They should not make derogatory personal comments that include hostility, slander, and insults.
• Reviewers should consult with the Editor or decline the invitation to review a manuscript in which they have potential conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or affiliations with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the articles.
• If a reviewer suggests that an author should include citations to the reviewer's (or their partners') work, this should be for genuine scientific reasons, not for the purpose of increasing the reviewer's citation count or increasing the visibility of their work (or their partners).
• Cases of unethical citations or fraudulent citations should be reported to the relevant Editor immediately.
• All studies should be evaluated by "double-blind peer review". The evaluation process of our journal is carried out with the principle of double-blind peer review. Reviewers cannot communicate directly with the authors; evaluations and comments are transmitted through the journal management system. In this process, the names of the authors in the full texts are closed and taken into account in the reviewer evaluation process. Similarly, the names of the reviewers in the Reviewer Evaluation Forms are closed when they are sent to the authors. Reviewer evaluations should be made without writing the full name but under the name "Reviewer Evaluation". Reviewer comments on evaluation forms and full texts are sent anonymously to the Corresponding Author(s) through the editor/field editor/assistant editor.

Ethical Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

Editors and field editors working in our journal should have the following ethical duties and responsibilities on the basis of the "COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" and "COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org) as open access:
General duties and responsibilities;
Editors are responsible for every publication published in our journal. In the context of this responsibility, editors have the following roles and obligations:
• Making efforts to meet the information needs of readers and authors,
• Ensuring the continuous development of the journal,
• Carrying out processes to improve the quality of the studies published in the journal,
• Supporting freedom of thought,
• Ensuring academic integrity,
• Maintaining business processes without compromising intellectual property rights and ethical standards,
• Showing openness and transparency in terms of publication on issues that require correction and clarification.
• Makes decisions only academically and takes full responsibility for these decisions.

Relationships with the reader;

Editors should make decisions by taking into account the expectations of all readers, researchers, and practitioners for the knowledge, skills, and experience they need. They should pay attention to the fact that the published studies contribute to the reader, researcher, practitioner, and scientific literature and are original. In addition, editors are obliged to take into account the feedback from readers, researchers, and practitioners and to provide explanatory and informative feedback.

Relations with authors;

The duties and responsibilities of the editors towards the authors are as follows:
• Editors should make a positive or negative decision based on the importance, original value, validity, clarity of expression, and the goals and objectives of the journal.
• Studies that are suitable for the scope of the publication should be taken to the pre-evaluation stage unless they have serious problems.
• Editors should not ignore positive reviewer suggestions unless there is a severe problem with the study.
• New editors should not change the decisions made by the previous Editor (s) regarding the work unless there is a severe problem.
• The double-blind peer review process must be published, and editors must prevent deviations that may occur in the defined processes.
• Editors should publish in a writing rules section that includes every subject expected from them by the authors in detail. These guides should be updated periodically.
• Authors should be notified and returned in a descriptive and informative manner.

Relations with reviewers;

The duties and responsibilities of the editors towards the reviewers are as follows:
• Determining the reviewers in accordance with the subject of the study.
• They are obliged to provide the information and guides that the reviewers will need during the evaluation phase.
• They should consider whether there is a conflict of interest between the authors and the reviewers.
• In the context of the double-blind peer review, the identity information of the reviewers should be kept confidential.
• Encouraging reviewers to evaluate the study in an impartial, scientific, and objective language.
• Evaluating the reviewers with criteria such as timely return and performance.
• Determining practices and policies that increase the performance of reviewers.
• Taking the necessary steps to update the reviewer pool dynamically.
• Prevent impolite and unscientific evaluations.
• Taking steps to ensure that the reviewer pool consists of a wide range.

Relations with the editorial board;

Editors should ensure that all editorial board members proceed with the processes in accordance with publication policies and guidelines. The editorial board should inform the members about the publication policies and keep them informed of the developments. The new editorial board should train its members on editorial policies and provide them with the information they need.
In addition, editors should;
• Ensure that the members of the editorial board evaluate the studies impartially and independently.
• Determine new editorial board members who are able and appropriate to contribute.
• Send the studies suitable for the expertise of the editorial board members for evaluation.
• Interact with the editorial board regularly.
• Orginise meetings with the editorial board at regular intervals for the development of publication policies and the journal.

Double-Blind Peer Review and Evaluation Process

Editors are obliged to implement the "Double-Blind Peer Review and Evaluation Process" policies in the journal publication policies. In this context, editors ensure that the fair, impartial, and timely evaluation process of each study is completed. Articles submitted to Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Science and Engineering are evaluated by the Editor/Field Editor/Assistant Editor in terms of their suitability for the focus and scope of the journal. The approved article is sent to two reviewers anonymously. In case of a rejection and an acceptance (or revision), the article is sent to the third reviewer. In case of major revision with heavy changes, it may be decided to reject the article. If deemed necessary, the article can be sent to a more significant number of reviewers. In line with the opinions of the reviewers, it is decided to publish or reject the article directly or partially by revising it. The decision is notified to the author(s), together with the reviewer's reports. In case correction is requested, the corrected article should be re-uploaded via DergiPark within one month at the latest. Additional time may be requested for the revised article that is not returned within the specified time or may be accepted for re-evaluation in later issues.

Quality Assurance

Editors are responsible for publishing every article in the journal in accordance with the journal's publication policies and international standards.

Protection of personal data

Editors are obliged to ensure the protection of personal data regarding the subjects or images involved in the evaluated studies. They are responsible for rejecting the article unless the explicit consent of the individuals used in the studies is documented. In addition, editors are responsible for protecting the individual data of the author, reviewer, and readers.

Ethics committee, human and animal rights

Editors are obliged to ensure the protection of human and animal rights in the evaluated studies. They are responsible for rejecting the study in cases where there is no ethics committee approval regarding the subjects used in the studies and no permission for experimental research.
Counteraction against possible misconduct and misconduct
Editors are obliged to take precautions against possible misconduct. In addition to conducting a meticulous and objective investigation into the identification and evaluation of complaints regarding this situation, it is among the Editor's responsibilities to share the findings on the subject.

Ensuring the integrity of academic publication

Editors should ensure that judgments containing errors, inconsistencies, or misdirection in the studies are corrected quickly.

Protection of intellectual property rights

Editors are obliged to protect the intellectual property rights of all published articles and to defend the rights of the journal and the author(s) in case of possible violations. In addition, editors are obliged to take the necessary measures to ensure that the content of all published articles does not violate the intellectual property rights of other publications.

Constructiveness and openness to discussion
Editors;
• Should take into account the persuasive criticisms of the works published in the journal and show a constructive attitude towards these criticisms.
• Should give the author(s) of the criticized studies the right to reply.
• Should not ignore or exclude studies with negative results.

Complaints
Editors are responsible for carefully reviewing complaints from authors, reviewers, or readers and providing informative and explanatory responses.

Political and Commercial concerns
The owner of the journal, publisher, and any other political or commercial entity does not influence the editors' independent decision-making.

Conflicts of interest
Considering the conflicts of interest between the author(s), reviewers, and other editors, editors guarantee that the publication process of the studies is completed independently and impartially.

PLAGIARISM CHECK

Each article submitted to the journal is scanned for similarity. All submitted articles are checked for similarity to see if they are appropriate in terms of journal writing rules, purposes, and format. Similarity checking is carried out through software such as iThenticate. In the journal, maximum similarity rates are accepted as 20% for general similarity and 4% for individual similarity. If these rates are exceeded, the plagiarism audit reports reviewed by the Editor(s) are shared with the author(s), and the author(s) may be asked to correct the errors in the report, or the article may be returned to the author(s). If the article is corrected, the final version is subjected to plagiarism evaluation again.
Articles should be prepared in accordance with ethical rules, and citations in the text must be specified.
In specific cases (such as technical template sentences, formulas, equations, and situations with many mathematical expressions), if the overall similarity rate is high, the final decision is made by the Editor(s).