Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics

 1. Journal Editors

1.1 Publication Decision: JELR accepts only manuscripts that have never been published elsewhere before (except in the form of an abstract) or are being considered for publication by another journal. The editorial team is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. The editor is guided by the policies of the 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 in making this decision.

1.2 Confidentiality: The editor and editorial staff must ensure the confidentiality of the submitted manuscripts until they are published, except in the case of suspicion of double submission or manuscripts that have been under revision or have been published elsewhere. Privileged information or ideas obtained through the peer review process must be kept confidential and are not allowed to be used for personal advantage.

1.3 Plagiarism: Plagiarism is strictly prohibited. Editors must try to examine whether the submitted manuscript is free from plagiarism. All submissions will be examined by the editorial staff in terms of plagiarism by using plagiarism-detecting software.

1.4 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All funding sources must be disclosed in the acknowledgement, and any conflicts of interest must be stated. All submissions must include disclosure of any relationship that could be viewed as a potential conflict of interest, such as funding organizations, affiliations of all the authors, advisors of the research project, etc.  The corresponding author must confirm that he/she had the final responsibility for the decision to submit and had full access to all the data involved in the study. 

Duties of Editors

  1. Journal editors are responsible for reviewing the format, completeness, and quality of articles before beginning the peer reviewer evaluation process for publication in the journal they are responsible for.
  2. The editor will not disclose any information during the article evaluation period and publication of that journal to any person unrelated, whether it is the author's information or the article reviewer.
  3. Editors will be the preliminary assessors in the decision to select articles for the publishing process and consider publishing articles that have passed the article evaluation process by considering the results of the peer reviewer's assessment of importance, newness, clarity, and the consistency of the content and the policy of the journal is important.
  4. Editors will not publish articles that have been published elsewhere, either in the form of journals or articles, after their presentation at a full academic conference (Proceedings).
  5. Editors will not reject the publication of articles that do not meet the requirements until there is evidence to prove those suspicions.
  6. The editors will not have any conflicts of interest with the authors, the evaluators, and the management team.
  7. Editors check for plagiarism in their articles using a reliable program. If there is clear evidence or confirmation that the work of others has been plagiarized, the editor will contact the main author for clarification, and if there is no clarification on an academic basis, the editor will refuse to publish the article.

 

 2. Authors

2.1 Authorship: All authors must have agreed to the submission and the order of their names on the title page. They must also have agreed that the corresponding author may act on their behalf throughout the editorial review and publication process.

2.2 Originality and Plagiarism: Manuscripts of research articles submitted to JELR must not have been published previously and must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. The author(s) must ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the author(s) have used the work and/or words of others, this must be appropriately cited or quoted and listed in the references. Any attempt at plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, or citation manipulation will result in the rejection of the submitted manuscript.  JELR reserves the right to use plagiarism-detecting software to screen submitted papers.

2.3 Human Subjects: If the research work involves the use of human participants/volunteers, the author(s) should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines. Authors must include a statement in the manuscript that approval from an ethics committee was obtained for any experiments/clinical trials involving human subjects. Authors must state the approval code in the manuscript.

2.4 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All funding sources must be disclosed in the acknowledgments, and any conflicts of interest must be stated. All submissions must include disclosure of any relationship that could be viewed as a potential conflict of interest. 

Duties of Authors

  1. The article submission must be certified by the author as new work and has never been presented in a proceeding or published form anywhere else.
  2. Articles submitted for publication, the authors must present reports of true information arising from research without distorting information or providing false information.
  3. If someone else's work is used in the author's work, the author's work must be referenced and appear in the reference list at the end of the article.
  4. Articles submitted for publication must follow the format specified in the recommendations of the original thesis submission of the journal, otherwise, the editors will not accept such articles.
  5. An article whose author's name appears must be a person who takes part in the actual research, and the editors will consider the feasibility of the article.
  6. The article must include the source of funding supporting this research in the acknowledgment (if any).
  7. The authors must specify conflicts of interest (if any).

 

3. Reviewers

3.1 Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer reviewers assist the editors in deciding to publish a manuscript and also assist the author(s) in improving the quality of the manuscript.

3.2 Confidentiality: Reviewers have to respect the confidentiality of the review process. They must not discuss aspects of the work under review with other researchers until such time as the article is published. Unpublished material disclosed in a manuscript under review must not be quoted or referenced by a reviewer without the express written consent of the author(s), requested through the editorial team. Information or ideas obtained through peer reviews must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

3.2 Standards of Objectivity: All manuscripts must be reviewed objectively in the context of the reviewer's expertise in the field. Personal opinions without backing evidence must not be used as criteria for review decisions.

3.3 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The reviewers must not use any information obtained through the peer review process for personal advantage. The reviewers must not accept to review if they have a conflict of interest with the author(s), companies, or institutions affiliated with the manuscripts. 

Duties of Reviewers

  1. The article reviewer will not disclose the information of the article and author to other unrelated persons throughout the evaluation period (Confidentiality).
  2. The article evaluator must not have conflicts of interest with the author, such as being a co-author or others, that will prevent the assessor from assessing and giving recommendations independently.
  3. Article assessors will assess articles in their area of ​​expertise based on their content and assess articles based on their importance, recency, clarity, and consistency, without using personal opinions that do not have technical information. Academic support came as a criterion for judging articles.
  4. The evaluator can suggest important research findings that are consistent with the article in case the author does not refer to the article evaluation.
  5. If the assessor finds that the article is similar to or plagiarizes the work of others with clear evidence, the assessor can reject the publication and notify the editor.

 

 

Process for handling complaints against editors submitted to the Publication Ethics Committee
1. Complaints from authors, readers, or reviewers may be forwarded to the Publication Ethics Committee for consideration.
2. Complaints to journal editors must be made in writing directly to the editor. The first step is to make a written complaint directly to the journal editor. If the complaint is not resolved satisfactorily, the complaint can be forwarded to the editor’s home committee or any reviewers.
3. Only complaints that have passed the journal's complaints process can be forwarded to the Publication Ethics Committee, and all relevant documentation must be attached.
4. The Publication Ethics Committee will accept complaints within 6 months after the journal has considered the complaint.
5. The Publication Ethics Committee will not consider complaints about the content of the editor’s decision to publish an article (but will consider the process) or comments about the content of the editorial.
6. The Publication Ethics Committee will not consider events that occurred before the publication of this ethical standard document.

 

Guidelines when a complaint is forwarded to the editorial board:
1. The complainant submits the complaint to the journal’s editorial staff.
2. The journal’s editorial staff will verify the complaint based on the following points: Then, forward it to the College's Research Ethics Committee or the accredited institution. 2.1 Complaint against a member of the journal's editorial board. 2.2 Complaint within the scope of the journal's editorial board. 2.3 Complaint that is not resolved after being forwarded to the journal for consideration according to the process. 3. The complainant must submit all relevant documents, including documents related to the complaint, to the journal that acknowledges the complaint, to reassure the journal's editorial board. 4. The chairman of the journal's ethics committee informs the journal's editor of the complaint forwarded to the ethics committee. 5. Various situations that may occur: The editor does not cooperate. In this case, the chairman of the journal's ethics committee will inform the complainant and the journal owner. The editor responds to the complaint with the following points:
5.1 The chairman of the journal's ethics committee and one representative nominated by a member of the Publication Ethics Committee Council jointly consider and decide that the journal has handled the complaint satisfactorily and has informed the complainant and the editor.
5.2 The chairman of the journal's ethics committee and one representative nominated by a member of the journal's ethics committee jointly decide that further investigation is necessary and have informed the complainant and the journal editor. And submit a report of the action to the relevant subcommittee of the journal's ethics committee. - The subcommittee that considers and decides on the complaint should consist of a chairperson and at least 3 members of the Publication Ethics Committee, of which 2 members must not be editors, and none of the members of the subcommittee are members of the same publishing house (or parent company) as the editor who is complained about.
6. If the chairperson is in the same publishing house (or parent company) as the editor who is complained about, the chairperson will appoint a vice-chairperson with appropriate qualifications to oversee the documents instead.
7. When a complaint is sent to the subcommittee, the subcommittee may:
7.1 Withdraw the complaint and inform the complainant and the editor of the reasons.
7.2 Conclude that it is a violation of the prescribed regulations.
8. When the subcommittee concludes that it is a violation of the prescribed regulations, it must submit a report to the Publication Ethics Committee, explaining the nature of the violation and providing recommendations on what to do. The journal ethics committee will consider the report, which may be revised. After that, it will inform the complainant, the editor, and the owner of the publishing house (journal) of the recommendations. Finally, these may include:

8.1 The editor shall apologize to the complainant for the complaint received.

8.2 The editor shall publish the statement received from the journal's Ethics Committee in his journal.

8.3 The journal shall make improvements to its procedures.

8.4 The editor shall resign from the Ethics Committee for some time or take any other action that the journal's Ethics Committee deems appropriate in the circumstances.

 

Appeal Procedure
The complainant may appeal against the recommendations of the journal's Ethics Committee by requesting the details of the contact persons from the Editorial Office and the journal's Ethics Committee.

 

Copyright Notice

The views and opinions appearing in the articles published in the International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews are the sole responsibility of the author of the article, not the viewpoint of the editors, and no copyright is reserved, but all references are made to the source.