Journal of Academic Opinion (JAO) has the status of an international peer-reviewed journal and is published electronically twice a year (June and December).
Studies such as research and review articles, conference reports, and book reviews are published in JAO.
The studies to be sent to JAO should be an original work that will fill a gap in the field or should be a review that evaluates previously published studies and presents new and remarkable views on the subject.
The views expressed in studies published in JAO are the author(s)’ own view, not the opinion of the journal. In addition, the scientific and legal responsibility of the articles belongs to the author(s).
No copyright is paid for studies submitted to JAO, and no fee is charged to the author(s). The copyright of the published studies is transferred to the Journal of Academic Opinion. The author(s) are responsible for completing and submitting a “Copyright Form” for journal articles.
Studies submitted to JAO must not have been previously published anywhere or submitted to another platform for publication. Papers presented in a scientific meeting can be sent to the journal for publication, provided that the presentation information (name, place, date of the congress, etc.) is clearly stated.
Studies sent to JAO will be sent electronically from the web page of the journal. After the aforementioned study is sent, developments related to the referee process and referee evaluation reports will be sent to the author(s) through e-mail by the editorial board.
Each study submitted to JAO is first subjected to a preliminary review by the editor, taking into account the scope and other requirements, in the evaluation process. As a result of the review, the double-blind peer-review process is initiated for the articles that are found suitable for evaluation. In this process, the relevant study is sent to two independent referees who are experts in the field for referee evaluation within the framework of ethical principles. The names of the author(s) and referees are kept confidential during the refereeing process. The referees are given 15 days to review and evaluate the study. According to the results of the peer-reviews, the decision of acceptance, revision, or rejection is given for the publication of the study in the journal. If the study is rejected by both referees, the evaluation process is concluded with a rejection decision. However, if one of the referees decides to reject and the other 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) sends the revised work within 15 days by revising it. The editor and / or referees re-evaluate the study, examine whether their suggestions have been fulfilled, and if revision is deemed necessary, the study is sent back to the author by the editor and re-evaluated. Finally, the editor decides whether to accept the study. The author(s) are informed about every step of this process by the editor.
If information or raw data about their study is requested from the author(s) during the evaluation process, the expected information should be submitted to the editor(s).
Studies sent to JAO should be prepared in accordance with ethical rules and the references made in the text should be specified. The similarity rate of the study should be submitted to the editorial board as 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 article in question is rejected by the editorial board.
The editorial board may use various “plagiarism control” software or programs (such as iThenticate) to check the originality of submitted study.
If 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), the editor may warn the author(s) and request rewriting and/or appropriate citation of the submission. If the plagiarism rate is more than 20%, the study may be rejected, or the institution(s) of the author(s) may be notified of the plagiarism rate. If plagiarism is detected after publication, this situation is disclosed to the readership as an editorial note in the journal 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 publication ethics and open access policy in order to conduct all stages of the publication process in accordance with ethical principles. These policies cover the author(s), editors, referees, and all related processes. When faced with situations that are not clearly stated within the framework of scientific publication ethics determined by JAO, the aforementioned guides and principles will be applied. All actors must comply with ethical principles during the broadcasting process.
The publication process of JAO is based on the objective production, development and sharing of information using scientific methods. Ethical principles must be followed in line with the publication ethics and open access policy, guidelines, and policies of all stakeholders of the publication process, which was prepared by TR Index to create ethical assurance in scientific periodicals and adopted by JAO. The Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers are applied by the Editorial Ethics Committee (COPE).
Ethics Committee
Within the scope of TR Index 2020 Journal Evaluation Criteria, “Ethics Committee Approval” is obtained for research conducted in all disciplines, and this approval is requested to be specified and documented in the study. Following this change in Article 8 within the scope of TR Index Evaluation Criteria, in studies requiring ethics committee permission, the process of which started in 2020, the information about the permission (ethics committee name, date and number number) in the Ethics Committee Approval, must be placed in the method section of the study, and in the first or last part of the study.
The criteria determined by TR Directory for the “Ethics Committee Approval” document are as follows:
1. Ethics committee approval must be obtained separately for studies 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 specified and documented in the study.
2. A statement that the research and publication ethics are complied with should be included in the studies.
3. In studies that require ethics committee permission, information about the permission (name of the committee, date, and number) should be included in the method section and also on the first/last page of the study. In case reports, information about signing the informed consent/consent form should be included in the study. ETHICS COMMITTEE PERMISSION is not required for studies whose data were collected before 2020 in research articles.
Accordingly, in the following studies to be sent to JAO;
1. In all studies conducted with qualitative or quantitative approaches that require data collection from the participants by using survey, interview, focus group work, observation, experiment, and interview techniques.
2. In retrospective research in accordance with the law on the protection of personal data,
Information on the ethics committee should be included in the method section, and research and publication ethics should be followed.
Responsibilities of the Editorial Board
• The editorial board evaluates incoming studies only in terms of scientific content, without considering the ethnic origin, gender, religious beliefs, or political choices of the author(s).
• The studies submitted to the journal are primarily checked for plagiarism by the editorial board. Studies with a plagiarism rate above the accepted limit are rejected by the board.
• The editorial board should notify the author within 7 days whether the studies submitted for publication to the journal have been evaluated or not.
• The editorial board implements the policies of a fair double-blind peer-review process, which is among the publication policies of the journal, for the publication of the submitted manuscripts. 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.
• The editorial board has the right to make a final decision when accepting or rejecting a study for publication, considering the importance, originality, and clarity of the study, as well as the validity of the study, and its compliance with the purpose and scope of the journal.
•The editorial board is responsible for following business processes without compromising intellectual property rights and ethical standards.
• The editorial board should not allow any conflict of interest or competition between the author(s), editors, and referees.
• When the editorial board encounters a situation that does not comply with publication ethics, or when an accusation is received, they are obliged to do what is necessary. This obligation also covers past issues.
• Unpublished methods and information contained in studies submitted to the journal should not be used by anyone in their own study without the express written permission of the author.
The editorial board considers the consistent criticisms of the studies published in the journal and gives the author(s) the right to reply for criticism.
If the Editorial Board determines that the above-listed responsibilities are not fulfilled by the editors, the relevant editor is terminated.
Responsibilities of the Referees
• Referees contribute to the editorial process by expressing their opinions to increase the scientificity of the study and to publish the study. With the awareness that they contribute to the development of science, they fulfill the duty of refereeing.
• When the referees think that the content of a submitted study is incompatible with their own scientific field or experience, or in cases where a quick evaluation cannot be made, they should inform the editor within 3 days and withdraw from the evaluation process.
• There should be no conflicts of interest or competition between the referees and the researchers, author(s), or sponsors.
• Referees should not use the privileged information and/or ideas obtained during the evaluation for their own benefit by keeping it confidential. In addition, the referees should not use any part of the data of the unpublished study that they have evaluated.
• The referees are obliged to keep all the information about the submitted study confidential and to inform the editor when they realize the copyright infringement and plagiarism by the author.
• Referee criticism should be made in an objective and constructive language. No hostile or insulting criticism should be made personally against the author(s). Referees should express their opinions with arguments that clearly support them.
• Referees are obliged to provide detailed justifications for the studies they will report in the direction of refusal.
If the Editorial Board determines that the responsibilities listed above are not fulfilled by the referees, the duties of the relevant referees are terminated, and the report/reports are cancelled.
Author(s) Responsibilities
• Author(s) should collect and interpret research data with honest, unbiased, and scientific methods. Scientific research should use real and unfalsified data.
• The author(s) must declare that the submitted study has not been previously published anywhere, in any language, or has not been evaluated for publication.
• The author(s) are obliged to declare the supporting institutions, financial resources, or conflicts of interest, if any.
• The author(s) must comply with the applicable copyright agreements and laws determined within the scope of the journal.
• Author(s) should collect data on their study within the framework of ethical principles. Editors and referees may request the raw data that forms the basis of the study from the author(s).
• The author(s) should provide ethics committee approval for research that requires quantitative or qualitative data collection methods such as experiments, questionnaires, scales, interviews, observations, and focus group studies. The document showing the decision of the ethics committee should be uploaded to the system together with the article application.
• The author(s) should consider the referee’s suggestions for the study with the utmost care and make the desired corrections.
• The author(s) should be able to criticize the referee proposals within the limits of courtesy.
• The studies submitted by the author(s) to the journal must be original. Author(s), contributors or sources should cite appropriately within the framework of scientific ethical rules and should indicate the relevant resources in accordance with the writing rules of the journal.
• If the author(s) detects an important mistake or defect in the study published in the journal, it is the obligation to notify the journal editor within 5 days and cooperate with the editor to correct the existing error or defect.
In case the Editorial Board determines that the above-listed responsibilities are not fulfilled by the author(s), they may refuse to publish the study at any stage. If the situation in question is determined after the study is published, the “Correction Text” is published in the first issue to be published.
