Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

A publication ethics and publication malpractice statement (composed using the Publishing Ethics Resource Kit and in compliance with Elsevier recommendations)



Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication

(These guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies)

The publication of an article in a peer reviewed journal is an essential fundamental in the development of a coherent and reputable network of knowledge andis the essential model for our journal "Higher Education and Science". It is also a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. Therefore, it is crucial to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing including the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher.

The Publisher and Editorial Board of the Journal of Higher Education and Science takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously. We recognize our responsibilities in all our policies and ethical guidelines.

The Publisher and Editorial Board also endeavor to contribute in establishing standards and policies that improve scientific communications, promote business ethics, and encourage continued, sustainable growth in the field of scholarly publishing. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.



Duties of authors

(These guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies)

Reporting standards

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 behavior and are unacceptable.

Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ëopinioní works should be clearly identified as such.

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, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. 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 behavior and is unacceptable.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. clinical guidelines, 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.

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.

Authorship of the paper

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. 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.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

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. 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 stage possible.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns 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 or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.



Duties of the Editorial Board

(These guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)

Publication decisions

The editor of a peer-reviewed Journal of Higher Education and Science is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be 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.

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.

Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff 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.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

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. 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. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

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, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Duties of Reviewers

(These guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)

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.

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 and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

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.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

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. 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.

General information

We ask authors and referees to send their articles and reports through our Dergipark online system. You can contact with an online assistance guide to help the use of this system and e-mail for any technical problems.

Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes, or numerical sort assessments, and we do not always comply with majority recommendations. We try to evaluate the power of the arguments put forward by each referee and by authors, and we can also evaluate other information that is not available for both sides. Our main responsibilities are against our readers and the science community in general, and we should compare the claims of each article with the others that are taken into consideration.

Reviewers may propose a specific action plan, but should not forget that other reviewers of a particular article may have different technical expertise and / or opinions, and editors may need to make a decision based on contradictory advice. Therefore, the most useful reports provide the editors information to be based on a decision. The revelation of the arguments in favor of and against the publication is a recommendation for the editors.


Double Blind Peer Review

The Journal of Higher Education and Science offers a double -blind co -examination option. Neither referees nor writers are explained to each other. Authors may recommend referees who are preferred and not preferred during the article sending. However, the final election of the referees will be determined by the editor (s). When evaluating the article, we ask the authors not to introduce themselves without the knowledge of the editor. If this is not possible, we ask the authors to inform the editor as soon as possible after explaining their identity to the author who reviews.


Peer Evaluation Process

The peer evaluation process is the main mechanism for ensuring the quality of the articles published. For this purpose, the articles sent are meticulously examined by the referee to ensure that high quality posts are accepted and published. The decision to accept an article is not only based on the scientific validity and originality of the work content; Innovation level, the scope and importance of new information, compared with other articles taken into consideration, the need to represent a wide range of subjects of the magazine and other factors such as general compliance for the magazine are also taken into consideration. The peer evaluation process is followed as the following steps:

1. At first, the editor (s) acts as the first filter by evaluating each article for innovation, the chance of competing for our readers in interest and the chance of competing in the referee evaluation. Nevertheless, this process saves time for authors and referees by eliminating the futile cycles of more appropriate articles for a more specialized magazine. Before starting the referee evaluation, changes / corrections can be requested from the authors at this stage.
2. In the second step, the editors usually select two referees who are experts of the subject. Usually, we include a specialist for statistics or a specific technique. Reviewers will make suggestions to the editor (s).
3. Authors can monitor the progress of the article throughout the review process in the profile.
4. Articles sent will be turned into one of the following decisions: Accept the post: Posting will be accepted without revision. Required revisions: The shipment will be accepted after small changes are made. Re -reference for review: The shipment must be re -studied, but it can be accepted by significant changes. However, a second review tour will be required. Rejecting the shipment: The shipment will not be published in the magazine.
5. If the author (s) believes that the magazine accidentally rejects articles, perhaps an objection to the editorial office (e-mail ) can be sent to the editorial office because the referees misunderstand their scientific content.

Editing the referee reports

Due to the policy, we do not hide the reports of those who review; Any interpretation of the authors, whatever we think about the content is conveyed. In rare cases, we can edit a report to remove the comments that reveal confidential information about aggressive language or other subjects. We want those who review to avoid expressions that may cause unnecessary crimes; On the contrary, we strongly recommend that those who review their views on an article clearly.


Timing

The journal of Higher Education and Science depends on rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that a productive editorial process is a valuable service to both our writers and as a whole. Therefore, the number of days agreed from the reviewers internal