IMPORTANT! If the Ethics Committee Acceptance Report is not required in the articles uploaded to our journal (i.e. if it is not a survey, face-to-face interview, etc.), then you must upload the ‘No Ethics Committee Report Required’ text in the Ethics Committee Report field by writing and signing it yourself.

In the ethical duties and responsibilities adopted by our journal, the ‘Directive on Scientific Research and Publication Ethics of Higher Education Institutions’ and the principles published by the ‘Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)’ are taken into consideration.

All Research Articles submitted to our journal must obtain an Ethics Committee Approval Certificate from the Ethics Committee.

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is a necessary building block in the development of a harmonious and respected knowledge network. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and their supporting institutes. Peer-reviewed articles support and shape the scientific method. It is therefore important for all parties involved in publishing, authors, journal editors, reviewers and publishing organisations, to agree on standards of expected ethical behaviour:

1. Authorship

- The bibliography list must be complete.

- Before uploading the article, the author should obtain a report from the ethics committee of the university where he / she works and upload it to the journal with the article. In addition, plagiarism and fake data should not be included.

- The same research should not be attempted to be published in more than one journal and should comply with scientific research and publication ethics.

Science research and publication ethics

a) Plagiarism: Presenting the ideas, methods, data, applications, writings, forms or works of others as one's own work, in whole or in part, without citing their owners in accordance with scientific rules,

b) Forgery: Producing data that are not based on research, editing or modifying the submitted or published work based on unreal data, reporting or publishing them, presenting a research that has not been conducted as if it has been conducted,

c) Distortion: Falsifying research records and the data obtained, showing methods, devices and materials that were not used in the research as if they were used, not evaluating data that are not in accordance with the research hypothesis, manipulating data and/or results to fit the relevant theory or assumptions, falsifying or shaping the results of the research in line with the interests of the persons and organisations receiving support,

ç) Re-publication: Presenting more than one work containing the same results of a research as separate works in associate professorship exam evaluations and academic promotions,

d) Slicing: Presenting the results of a research as separate works in associate professorship exam evaluations and academic promotions by inappropriately dividing the results of a research into parts in a way that disrupts the integrity of the research and by making many publications without citing each other,

e) Unfair authorship: Including people who have not made active contributions among the authors, excluding people who have made active contributions among the authors, unjustified and unjustified changes in the order of authorship.

f)Other types of ethical violations:

Failure to clearly indicate the persons, institutions or organisations that provide support and their contributions to the research in the publications of the research conducted with support, failure to comply with ethical rules in research on humans and animals, failure to respect patient rights in publications, sharing the information contained in a work that he / she has been assigned to review as a referee with others before publication, misuse of resources, venues, facilities and devices provided or allocated for scientific research, making completely groundless, unwarranted and deliberate accusations of ethical violations (YÖK Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive, Article 8).

2. Author Responsibilities
- All authors must contribute significantly to the research.

- A declaration that all data in the manuscript are true and authentic is required.
- All authors must ensure retraction and correction of errors.

- Articles written in Arabic should include a bibliography in Latin.
3. Responsibilities of the Referees
1. Referees will be paid an article evaluation fee if the required points in the referee evaluation form sent by the editorial office are fulfilled.

2. There are two basic principles that the referees should follow in the evaluation form.

a. If the referee responds positively or negatively to the requested items in the report, he/she must present both in a reasoned manner.

b. In the case of a negative or correction request, the referee must definitely ‘suggest an alternative’.

3. When the referee receives the file, he/she should immediately inform the editor that the file has been received in good condition.

4. The referee should inform the editor within a maximum of one week whether he / she can evaluate the study, taking into account the evaluation period foreseen for the study and the suitability of the subject of the study.

5. Reviewers are given 30 days to evaluate a manuscript. The referee cannot request additional time for evaluation in order to prevent the author from losing his/her rights. The referee who does not send the evaluation report within this period will not be paid.

6. If the referee thinks that he/she cannot act fairly due to various reasons (author, institution, financier, etc.), he/she should inform the editor within a maximum of one week that he/she cannot evaluate the study.
7. Referee evaluations are expected to be critical and unbiased.

8. Referees are expected to make only a text-centred evaluation, avoid statements about the inadequacies of the author(s), and stay away from statements that may damage their personalities.
9. The referee is expected not only to answer yes or no to the evaluation criteria, but also to elaborate his/her negative opinions and state his/her reasons.
10. Some points of two referee reports may contradict each other. In this case, the editor finds a solution by contacting the referees.

4. Editorial Responsibilities

 -Editors have full responsibility and authority to accept or reject an article.

- Editors should not be in conflict of interest regarding the articles they accept or reject.

- Only articles that will contribute to the field should be accepted.

- When errors are found, they should support the publication or withdrawal of the correction.

- It should keep the names of the referees confidential and prevent plagiarism/fake data.

The journal editor does not send reviews to referees in the following situations as much as possible:
. Referees with whom the author/authors have previously published a joint study,
- Assisted the referees in the preliminary reading of the author's/authors' work,
- To referees with whom the author/authors are known to have had problems before,

- Reviewers who will benefit financially from the publication of the study,

- Reviewers working in the same institution (same department) as the author.

The peer review process is central to the success of scientific publishing. Protecting and improving the arbitration process is part of our commitment.

5. Uncovering Plagiarism


Articles submitted for publication in the Journal of Pamukkale University Faculty of Theology are subjected to double blind peer review by at least two referees. In addition, it is confirmed that the articles have not been published before and do not contain plagiarism through a special programme used in plagiarism detection.

In addition, since 2020, surveys, face-to-face interviews, etc.