The Evaluation of Articles
As a first step, the writings
that are sent to Nesne-Journal of Psychology are evaluated with regards to the
rules of journal principles and orthographic rules. The approved articles are
delivered to Editorial Board. The Editorial Board evaluates the context of
articles and sends them to two referees in related fields. The Editorial Board
makes final decision whether publish the article or not in terms of the
referee’s report. The articles which are decided to being published by
the Editorial Board, come in the list of publication and the authors of these
articles are informed.
The authors’ royalties of
articles (published in Nesne-Journal of Psychology) are supposed to be assigned by Nesne-Journal of Psychology. The responsibilities of opinions in published articles are under
author’s charge.
This journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.
To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity.
Publication Language
The publication language of
Nesne-Journal of Psychology is both in Turkish and English.
General Rules
1. Your essay should be
typed on standard-sized paper (8.5" x 11") with 1" margins
on all sides.The writings need to be in Microsoft Word Programme, and written in 12 pt. Times New Roman font and with 1,5 space.
2. The texts should include
these sections as title, abstract (Turkish and English), key words, main body,
references, footnotes, tables, appendixes, figures and author note.
a)Title: the title should
be maximum 10-12 words (maximum 50 character with the space between
words) in title page.
The Author’s name: The name of
author’s needs to be written under the title of the text, the job title,
address of institution and e-mail can be attached to authors’ last name with *
text in the first page.
b) Abstract and keywords: The
brief summary of article needs to be written in both Turkish and English under
the title of Özet and Abstract has to be 200 words or less. Key words (more
than two but fewer then eleven) should be written in Turkish version under the
title of Anahtar kelimeler and in English version under the title of Keywords.
The both Turkish and English versions should begin on a new page.
c) Main Body: Begin a
new page. The essays of empirical studies should consist of introduction,
method, results and discussion parts. The order of these parts can be changed
in terms of the context of review articles. The head title of article needs to
be written at the upper right corner of the each page with page number. The
title of essay should be in the first page and there is no subheading at the
beginning of article as ’Introduction’ .The essays should begin with a
paragraph. The method, results and discussion parts needs to be successive
without beginning new page.
Introduction part should
include a brief summary of approaches and results in literature and the main
aims of article. The method part needs to consist of three subsections as
participants, research materials and procedure. Results should include the all
statistical analyses, the mean and standard deviation of each variable. Tables
and figure should be placed at the end of the essay in new pages. In given
tables, the numeric values of standard deviation and mean should be indicated
with M and SD respectively.
Discussion parts need to be
formed in terms of the evaluation of recent study in the light of literature.
d)Begin a new page. All
references cited in the text must appear in a ‘‘References’’ list.
In the text, others’ work is
cited by inserting the authors’ last name and the date of publication.
Instances:
Koksal (2013) ...
According to Koksal (2011)..
Dils ve Boroditsky (2010) …
According to Dills ve
Boroditsky (2010) ..
If the works being cited has
more than two authors but fewer than six, the first time you use, the author
names need to be mentioned above; but for six or more authors need to be cited
,even in the first time you use, as Stallard et al. (2000) . If several works
are cited at the end of sentence, the authors’ last names should be given in
alphabetic order within parentheses.
... (Baggerly ve Exum, 2008;
Gil,1991; Landreth, 2002).
The references should be given
in an aphabetic order in References part.
e) Appendix : Begin with new
page. The examples which are used in research, should placed in this part.
f) Tables: Begin with new page
and the each table needs to be given in separate pages. The number and title of
table at the top of the tables and starts the each initial with capital .The
all tables should be prepared in the table section of Microsoft Office
Programme.
g)Figure titles and figures:
Begin with new page. The number and title of figures should be given in same
page in successive order with the capital initials of each word. Each figure
needs to be taken part in new page. The total number of figures and tables
should be under 5 or 6.
h) Authors notes: Begin with
new page. If the essay is a summary of a thesis or there are sponsors of
research needs to be mentioned in this part. Furthermore, the authors
present their thanks for contributions of study in this page.
3. The opinions mentioned in
articles is in author’s charge.
4. The all references cited
from published articles in Nesne-Journal of Psychology must appear in a reference list. In the course
of citation, the authors and publisher are regally responsible for the
distortions of context of articles.
5. If appropriate, the
Editorial Board could make a change in words.
6. The articles are not proper
for the rules that will not be published.
7.
Nesne-Journal of Psychology does not make payment to publish articles.
8.The data of all published studies needs to be kept for 5 years by researchers. Either publication principles or the rules of international publication associations, as required, Nesne can demand the data and analysis programme of studies.
Publishing Ethics: Instructions for authors
Ethical standards in the field of publications need to ensure high quality scientific publications, to ensure the credibility of the research by the society and the recognition of copyright works in the scientific community. To avoid:
-fabricating and falsifying data (fabrication of data means that the researcher without any work, invented data falsification-substitution of data obtained during the experiment);
-plagiarism in scientific texts (under plagiarism means using someone else's ideas and works, copy texts or their fragments without specifying source, infraction citations);
-simultaneous presentation in several magazines (consideration of manuscripts-work editors and reviewers);
-duplication of publication (posting the same or similar texts in manuscript several periodicals harms the reputation of the academic and journals);
-non-compliance of copyrights of their sponsors-supervisor or colleagues (all who contributed to the study should be identified, including students and laboratory technicians);
-incorrect list of authors (if the article is written in co-authorship, then each author should be related to the process of preparing the article, have scientific interests in this field).
In cases of violation of publication ethics, the article may be recalled at any stage of the preparation and publication of the article. If the violation is detected after publication, then retraction of articles is carried out by decision of the editorial board unilaterally.
Publishing Ethics (complete)
Publishing Ethics
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal “Nesne” are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org
1. Introduction
1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned journal: "Nesne".
1.2. Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programs record «the minutes of science» and we recognize our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1. Publication decision – The Editor of a learned “Nesne” is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the “Nesne” journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2. Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3. Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of “Nesne” must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
2.5. Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2. Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of “Nesne” and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3. Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
3.4. Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1. Reporting standards
4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
4.2. Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3. Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
4.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
4.6. Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.7.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
4.7.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
4.8. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of “Nesne” journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
5. Duties of the Publisher
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of “Nesne” in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
5.2. The publisher should support “Nesne” journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
5.4. Publisher should provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.
