Nesne Journal of Psychology accepts as a basic requirement the following standards of research and publication ethics announced by the Council of Higher Education of Türkiye (Yükseköğretim Kurulu, YÖK) (https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Kurumsal/mevzuat/bilimsel-arastirma-ve-etik-yonetmeligi.aspx). Before submitting an article to the journal, authors should take into account the standards announced by the Council of Higher Education, the recommendations of the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) and the “International Standards for Editors and Authors” set out by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).

Actions Contrary to Scientific Research and Publication Ethics

The principal actions defined by the Council of Higher Education as contrary to scientific research and publication ethics are the following:

1. Plagiarism: presenting the original ideas, methods, data or works of others, in part or in full, as one's own work without citing them in accordance with scientific rules;
2. Fabrication: using data that do not exist or that have been falsified in scientific research;
3. Falsification: falsifying research records or the data obtained, presenting devices or materials not used in the research as if they had been used, or falsifying or shaping research results in the interests of the persons and organizations providing support;
4. Duplicate publication: presenting duplicate publications as separate publications in academic appointments and promotions;
5. Salami publication: dividing the results of a study inappropriately into parts in a way that undermines the integrity of the study, publishing them more than once, and presenting these publications as separate publications in academic appointments and promotions;
6. Unjustified authorship: including persons without an active contribution among the authors or excluding persons who made one, changing the order of authors without justification and inappropriately, removing the names of those who made an active contribution from later editions of the work, or using one's influence to have one's name included among the authors without an active contribution.

The other actions defined by the Council of Higher Education as contrary to scientific research and publication ethics are the following:

1. failing to acknowledge, in publications resulting from supported research, the persons, institutions or organizations that provided support and their contributions;
2. using theses or studies that have not yet been submitted, or defended and accepted, as sources without the permission of their owner;
3. failing to comply with ethical rules in research on humans and animals, or failing to respect patient rights in publications;
4. acting contrary to the provisions of the relevant legislation in biomedical research involving humans and in other clinical research;
5. sharing information contained in a work one has been assigned to review with others before its publication without the explicit permission of its author;
6. using resources, premises, facilities and devices provided or allocated for scientific research for purposes other than those intended;
7. making unfounded, groundless and deliberate accusations of ethical violation;
8. publishing data obtained in surveys and attitude studies conducted within a scientific study without the explicit consent of the participants or, where the research is conducted in an institution, without the permission of that institution;
9. harming animal health and the ecological balance in research and experiments;
10. failing to obtain in writing from the competent units the permissions required before research and experiments begin;
11. conducting work in research and experiments contrary to the legislation, or to the provisions of international conventions to which Türkiye is a party, concerning the research and experiments in question;
12. failure by researchers and officials to comply with the obligation to inform and warn those concerned about potentially harmful practices relating to the scientific research conducted;
13. failing, in scientific studies, to use data and information obtained from other persons and institutions only to the extent and in the manner permitted, to respect the confidentiality of such information, and to ensure its protection;
14. making false or misleading statements concerning scientific research and publications in academic appointments and promotions.

Responsibilities

Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief and the Editors

The editor-in-chief, the editorial board and the reviewers of Nesne Journal of Psychology assume their duties after declaring that they will comply with these rules and with the principles of academic ethics, and that they will relinquish their duties immediately in case of non-compliance. In the event of any ethical violation stated above or arising in the future, those responsible undertake to relinquish their duties immediately. The responsibilities of the editor-in-chief and of the section editors are evaluated by the editorial board, which takes its decisions by majority vote. The editor-in-chief examines each incoming article irrespective of the nationality, ethnic origin, religious belief, political opinion, sexual orientation or institutional affiliation of its authors, identifies the appropriate editor for the article, and forwards the study to that editor with a brief note. From the moment it leaves the editor-in-chief, the study completes the remaining stages under the double-blind system. After examining the article, the editor forwards it to two reviewers who will evaluate the study. The editor concerned is responsible for sharing the corrections and reports of the reviewers with the authors and with the editor-in-chief. Following up the corrections is the responsibility of the editor-in-chief and of the editor concerned. The editor forwards the revised study received from the author to the editorial board and to the editor-in-chief. The editor-in-chief is responsible for establishing the publication order of the articles and for forwarding the studies to those responsible for typesetting, so that typesetting and layout can begin. Those responsible for typesetting and layout typeset the files received from the editor-in-chief in accordance with the publication principles of the journal. The editor-in-chief sends the typeset studies back to the authors for a final reading, and the final check of the texts returned by the authors is again the responsibility of the editor-in-chief.

To prevent adverse situations that affect the quality of academic publishing, the editors follow the flowchart available at https://publicationethics.org/files/recognising-peer-review-manipulation-cope-infographic.pdf. In this process they carefully examine institutional e-mail addresses, institutional information, and suspicious reviewer and author behavior: excessively rapid evaluation, rejection without reason, approval without evaluation, an excessively positive or negative evaluation contrary to those of the other reviewers, submission of an article by an author from a field in which the author does not work, sudden and unexplained changes of author, and reviewer reports resembling other reviewer reports. They evaluate any irregularities encountered in this flowchart together with the editor-in-chief and the editorial board.

If the editors have doubts about the contact details of the reviewers suggested for an article received by the journal, they follow the flowchart available at https://publicationethics.org/files/peer-review-manipulation-during-review-cope-flowchart.pdf.

If the editors have doubts about an authorship dispute in an article submitted to the journal, they follow the flowchart available at https://publicationethics.org/files/recognising-authorship-problems-cope-infographic.pdf.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

The peer review process is one of the most important stages in the development of academia and of academic publishing, and its rigorous conduct is one of the most important elements of academic publishing. When examining the articles sent to them or preparing reviewer reports, reviewers should act according to the core principles published by COPE. Scientists who agree to review for Nesne Journal of Psychology should respect the confidentiality of the studies sent to them and the intellectual property rights of their authors.

As a reviewer:

• You should follow the guidance given on the website of the journal before you begin writing your report, and you should use the article evaluation form provided by the journal.
• Being objective and constructive in your review, giving feedback that will help the authors to improve their articles, and being specific in your criticism are an important part of this process. You should avoid provocative, defamatory or derogatory language.
• You should remember in particular that personal remarks and unfounded accusations make no contribution to the improvement of academic publishing.
• You may sometimes not have examined the whole article. In that case, you should state clearly which parts of the article you have reviewed.
• Where you consider it necessary, you may send notes intended for the editor in a separate e-mail to the editor. Such notes, however, should not accuse or disparage the author or authors.
• You should not forget that the study sent to you consists of the writing of other authors. If there is no structural problem, you should not attempt to impose a new mode of expression suited to your own style that disregards the preferences of the authors. If you do identify a structural problem, you should likewise avoid creating a new language or text that could take the study beyond its present form. You should express your views clearly, but it bears repeating: “This is someone else's work.”

Note: Reviewers should inform the editor within 15 days of their decision whether or not to review the study sent to them. Reviewers who decide to review a study undertake to send their opinion on the article to the editor within 60 days.

Responsibilities of Authors

All authors and researchers submitting manuscripts to Nesne Journal of Psychology fully accept to comply with the principles of scientific research and publication ethics published by the Council of Higher Education. The studies of authors who do not comply with scientific research and publication ethics are not accepted for publication under any circumstances. Studies published in the journal but subsequently found not to comply with scientific research and publication ethics are removed from the journal with an appropriate notice. If requested by the competent authorities, the journal shares the documents relating to the ethical violation in question with the relevant institutions, within the powers and responsibilities conferred by law. Authors submitting manuscripts to the journal undertake that the study is original, has not previously been published elsewhere and has not been submitted to another institution. When submitting an article, authors declare at the outset of the process that the study respects all copyrights, that the necessary permissions have been obtained, that everyone who contributed to the study is acknowledged in the relevant sections of the study, and that the sources and references have been arranged in accordance with scientific research and publication ethics. All individuals and institutions that contributed to the study but are not listed as authors should be named under the heading “Acknowledgements”. If an author identifies a serious error in a published study, the author reports it to the editor-in-chief, who decides together with the editorial board on a correction or a retraction. Requests for correction arising from clerical errors, such as errors of spelling and punctuation, are not accepted.

Before submitting an article to the journal, authors should take into account the standards announced by the Council of Higher Education, the recommendations of the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) and the “International Standards for Editors and Authors” set out by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).