Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

Journal Publication Policy

The Journal of Academic Opinion (JAO) is an internationally peer-reviewed journal published electronically twice yearly (June and December).

Studies such as research and review articles, conference reports, and book reviews are published in JAO.

Studies to be sent to JAO must be an original study that will fill a gap in the field or a review that evaluates previously published studies and reveals new and noteworthy views on the subject.

The opinions expressed in the studies published in JAO are the author(s') own opinion, not the journal's. In addition, the scientific and legal responsibility of the articles belongs to the author(s).

No copyright is paid to the works sent to JAO, and no fee is charged to the author(s). The copyright of published works is transferred to the Journal of Academic Opinion. Author(s) must fill out and submit a "Copyright Form" for journal articles.

Studies submitted to JAO must not have been published anywhere before and must not have been submitted to another platform for publication. Papers presented at a scientific meeting can be sent to the journal for publication, provided the presentation information (name, place, date, etc. of the congress) is clearly stated.

Studies sent to JAO will be sent electronically from the journal's website. After the study in question is submitted, developments regarding the referee process and referee evaluation reports will be communicated to the author(s) via e-mail by the editorial board.

Each study sent to JAO is first subjected to a preliminary review by the editor, who considers the scope and other requirements during the evaluation process. As a result of the review, the double-blind referee evaluation process of the articles found suitable for evaluation is initiated. In this process, the relevant study is sent to two independent referees who are experts in their field for peer review within the framework of ethical principles. The names of the author(s) and referees are kept confidential during the refereeing process. Referees are given 15 days to review and evaluate the study. According to the results of the referee evaluations, a decision is made to accept, revise, or reject the study's publication in the journal. If both referees reject the study, the evaluation process is concluded with a rejection decision. However, if one of the referees rejects and the other decides to accept or revise, the rejected work is sent to a third referee for review. The final decision on the article is made after the third review. If the study is sent back for revision, the author(s) will revise and send the revised study within 15 days. The editor and referees re-evaluate the study and examine whether their suggestions have been implemented. If a revision is required, the editorial board rejects the article in question, and the author re-evaluates. Finally, the editor decides whether to accept the work. The editor informs the author(s) about every step of this process.

If information or raw data regarding their work is requested from the author(s) during the evaluation process, the expected information must be provided to the editor(s).

Ethical rules must be followed to prepare studies sent to JAO, and references in the text must be stated. The similarity rate of the study should be submitted to the editorial board in a report by the author(s). The upper limit of acceptable similarity rate is 20%. When it is determined that the upper limit of the similarity rate is exceeded, the editorial board rejects the article in question.

The editorial board may use various “plagiarism checking” software or programs (such as iThenticate) to check the originality of submitted works.

Suppose plagiarism is detected by both the referees and the editorial board at any stage of the submission (before or after acceptance, at any stage before publication). In that case, the editor may warn the author(s) and request the rewriting and appropriate citation of the submission. If the plagiarism rate is more than 20%, the study may be rejected, or the institution to which the author(s) are affiliated may be notified of the plagiarism rate. If plagiarism is detected after publication, this situation is disclosed to the readership in the journal as an editor's note, and the author(s) institutions are notified of this violation rate.


Scientific Publication Ethics

Journal of Academic Opinion (JAO) has adopted various policies based on the guidelines and principles published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as its publication ethics and open access policy to carry out all stages of the publication process per ethical principles. These policies cover the author(s), editors, referees, and all related processes. When situations are not clearly stated within the framework of scientific publication ethics determined by JAO, the mentioned guidelines and principles will be applied. All actors must comply with ethical principles during the broadcasting process.

JAO's publication process is based on the principle of impartial production, development, and information sharing using scientific methods. The publication ethics and open access policy, prepared by TR Dizin to create ethical assurance in scientific periodical publishing and adopted by JAO, requires all stakeholders of the publication process to comply with ethical principles in line with the guidelines and policies. The principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) "Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" and "Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers" are applied.


Ethics Committee

Within the scope of TR Index 2020 Journal Evaluation Criteria, "Ethics Committee Approval" must be obtained for research conducted in all branches of science, and this approval must be stated and documented in the study. In studies requiring ethics committee permission, the process of which started in 2020 upon this change in Article 8 within the scope of the TR Index Evaluation Criteria, the information regarding the permission in the Ethics Committee Approval (ethics committee name, date, and issue number) is included in the method section of the study and also in the first/last year of the study. It is required to be included on the page.

The criteria determined by TR Dizin for the "Ethics Committee Approval" certificate are as follows:

  1. Separate ethics committee approval must be obtained for research conducted in all branches of science, including social sciences, and for clinical and experimental studies on humans and animals that require an ethics committee decision, and this approval must be stated and documented in the study.
  2. The studies must include a statement that Research and Publication Ethics are complied with.
  3. In studies requiring ethics committee permission, information about the permission (committee name, date, and issue number) should be included in the method section and on the study's first/last page. In case reports, information about the signed informed consent/consent form must be included in the study. In research articles, ETHICS COMMITTEE PERMISSION is not required for studies whose data were collected before 2020.

Accordingly, it will be sent to JAO;

  1. All research conducted with qualitative or quantitative approaches requires collecting data from participants using surveys, interviews, focus group studies, observation, experiments, and interview techniques,
  2. In retrospective research by the personal data protection law

information regarding the ethics committee must be included in the method section, and research and publication ethics must be adhered to.


Responsibilities of the Editorial Board

  • The editorial board evaluates the received studies only in terms of scientific content, without considering the author's ethnic origin, gender, religious beliefs, or political choices of the author(s).
  • Studies sent to the journal are first checked for plagiarism by the editorial board. The board rejects works with a plagiarism rate above the accepted limit.
  • The editorial board must notify the author within seven days whether the studies sent to the journal have been evaluated.
  • The editorial board implements a fair double-blind peer review process, which is among the journal's publication policies, for the publication of submitted articles. At this stage, it keeps the identity information of the referees confidential and ensures that each study is examined in a timely and objective manner.
  • When accepting or rejecting a study for publication, the editorial board has the right to make a final decision, taking into account the study's importance, originality, and clarity, as well as the validity of the study and its suitability for the purpose and scope of the journal.
  • The editorial board monitors business processes without compromising intellectual property rights and ethical standards.
  • The editorial board should not allow a conflict of interest or competition between the author(s), editors, and reviewers.
  • When the editorial board encounters a situation that does not comply with publication ethics or receives an accusation, they are obliged to take necessary action. This obligation also extends to past issues.
  • no one in their work should use unpublished methods and information in studies submitted to the journal without the author's express written permission.
  • The editorial board considers consistent criticisms of the studies published in the journal and gives the author(s) the right to respond to the criticism.

If the Editorial Board determines that the editors do not fulfill the above responsibilities, the relevant editor's duty will be terminated.


Responsibilities of Referees

  • Referees contribute to the editorial process by expressing their opinions to increase the study's scientific nature and publish it. They fulfill their duty as referees with the awareness that they contribute to the development of science.
  • When referees think that the content of a submitted study is incompatible with their scientific field or knowledge, or in cases where a quick evaluation cannot be made, they must withdraw from the evaluation process by informing the editor within three days.
  • There should be no conflict of interest or competitive conflict between reviewers and researchers, author(s), or sponsors.
  • Referees should not use privileged information and ideas obtained during the evaluation for their benefit by keeping them confidential. Additionally, reviewers should not use any part of the data of the study they are reviewing that has not yet been published.
  • Referees are obliged to keep all information regarding the submitted work confidential and to inform the editor when they notice copyright infringement or plagiarism by the author.
  • Referee criticisms should be made in objective and constructive language. No hostile or insulting criticism should be directed towards the author(s) personally. Reviewers must express their opinions with clear supporting arguments.
  • Referees must give detailed reasons for the studies they will reject.

If the Editorial Board determines that the referees do not fulfill the responsibilities listed above, the duties of the relevant referees are terminated, and the report(s) are canceled.

Author(s) Responsibilities

  • Author(s) must collect and interpret research data using honest, impartial, scientific methods. Scientific research should use accurate and undistorted data.
  • The author(s) must declare that the work they submit has not been published before or evaluated for publication anywhere, in any language.
  • Author(s) are obliged to declare the supporting institutions, financial resources, or conflict of interest for the work they submit.
  • Author(s) must comply with the applicable copyright agreements and laws determined within the journal's scope.
  • Author(s) must collect data regarding their work within the framework of ethical principles. The editor and referees may request the raw data that forms the basis of the study from the author(s).
  • The author(s) must provide ethics committee approval for research that requires quantitative or qualitative data collection methods such as experiments, surveys, scales, interviews, observations, and focus group studies. The document showing the ethics committee decision must be uploaded to the system together with the article application.
  • The author(s) should carefully consider the referee's suggestions regarding the study and make the requested corrections.
  • Author(s) should be able to criticize referee suggestions within the limits of courtesy.
  • The works the author(s) send to the journal must be original. Author(s), contributors, or sources must be cited appropriately within the scientific and ethical rules framework and cite relevant sources per the journal's editorial rules.
  • If the author(s) detect a significant mistake or flaw in their work published in the journal, they must report this to the journal editor within five days and cooperate with the editor to correct the current mistake or flaw.

If the Editorial Board determines that the responsibilities listed above are not fulfilled by the author(s), it may refrain from publishing the work at any stage. If the situation in question is detected after the study is published, a "Correction Text" will be published in the first issue to be published.