"ETHICAL PRINCIPLES"

The publication process applied in the Journal of Sports & Science constitutes the basis for the impartial and reputable development and distribution of knowledge. In this regard, the processes applied directly affect the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed studies are concrete and supportive studies that embody the scientific method. At this point, it is important for all stakeholders of the process (authors, readers and researchers, publishers, referees, and editors) to adhere to ethical principles. It is expected that all stakeholders in the Journal of Sports & Science will carry the following ethical responsibilities within the scope of publication ethics.

The ethical duties and responsibilities listed below were prepared taking into account the guidelines and policies published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as open access.
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
• Authors are expected to ensure that the studies they submit are original. If authors use other studies, they are expected to make complete and accurate citations and/or quotations.
• Individuals who do not contribute intellectually to the content creation should not be listed as authors.
• If there are any conflicts of interest or relationships that may pose a conflict of interest in all studies submitted for publication, they should be disclosed.
• Authors may be requested to provide raw data regarding their articles during the evaluation process. In such a case, the authors should be prepared to present the expected data and information to the publication board and the scientific board.
• Authors should have a document showing that they have the rights to use the data used and the necessary permissions related to the research/analyses, or that consent was obtained from the subjects of the experiment.
• If authors notice any errors or inaccuracies related to their published, early view, or evaluation stage studies, they have an obligation to inform the journal editor or publisher and collaborate with the editor in the correction or withdrawal processes.
• Authors cannot have their studies under review for multiple journals simultaneously. Each application can be initiated after the completion of the previous application. A study published in another journal cannot be submitted to the Journal of Sports & Science.
• Changes to author responsibilities, such as adding, changing the order of authors, or removing authors, cannot be proposed for a study that has started the evaluation process.
Ethical Duties and Responsibilities of Editors
The Journal of Sports & Science editors and field editors should have the following ethical duties and responsibilities based on the "COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" and "COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as open access:
General duties and responsibilities
Editors are responsible for every publication in the Journal of Sports & Science. In this context of responsibility, editors undertake the following roles and responsibilities:

Editorial duties and responsibilities
The duties and responsibilities of the editors are as follows:
• Making efforts to meet the information needs of readers and authors,
• Ensuring the continuous development of the journal,
• Managing processes aimed at improving the quality of the work published in the journal,
• Supporting freedom of thought,
• Ensuring academic integrity,
• Continuing the editorial processes without compromising intellectual property rights and ethical standards,
• Demonstrating clarity and transparency in publishing when corrections or explanations are necessary.

Relationship with readers
Editors must make decisions while taking into account the information, skills, and experience expectations of all readers, researchers, and practitioners. They must ensure that the published works contribute to the readers, researchers, practitioners, and scientific literature, and are original in nature. Additionally, editors are obliged to take into account feedback from readers, researchers, and practitioners, and provide explanatory and informative feedback.

Relationship with authors
The duties and responsibilities of editors towards authors are as follows:
• Editors must make positive or negative decisions based on the importance, originality, validity, clarity of expression, and the aims and objectives of the journal.
• They must consider for pre-review all works that are appropriate for publication scope and do not have a serious problem.
• Unless there is a serious problem with the work, editors should not ignore positive peer recommendations.
• New editors should not change decisions made by previous editors regarding works unless there is a serious problem.
• "Blind Peer Review and Evaluation Process" must be published and editors must prevent deviations from the defined processes.
• Editors should publish a "Guide for Authors" that includes all the topics that authors may expect from them in detail. These guides should be updated at certain intervals.
• Informative and explanatory notifications and feedback must be provided to authors.

Relationship with reviewers
The duties and responsibilities of editors towards reviewers are as follows:
• Editors must select reviewers that are suitable for the subject of the work.
• They must provide the necessary information and guidance to the reviewers during the evaluation stage.
• They must monitor for conflicts of interest between authors and reviewers.
• In the context of blind peer review, they must keep the identity of the reviewers confidential.
• They must encourage reviewers to evaluate the work in an unbiased, scientific, and objective language.
• They must evaluate reviewers on criteria such as timely feedback and performance.
• They must determine policies and practices that increase the performance of reviewers.
• They must take necessary steps to update the pool of reviewers dynamically.
• They must prevent discourteous and unscientific evaluations.
• They must take steps to ensure that the pool of reviewers is diverse.

Relationship with the Editorial Board
Editors must ensure that all members of the Editorial Board progress the processes in compliance with publication policies and guidelines. They must inform the Editorial Board members about publication policies, and ensure that they fulfill their duties and responsibilities accordingly. The editors must take necessary steps to keep the Editorial Board members updated about changes in publication policies and guidelines. They must also ensure that the Editorial Board members actively contribute to the development of the journal.

The Role of Editors in Academic Journals

Editors of academic journals have a crucial role in ensuring the quality and integrity of published articles. They are responsible for upholding the journal's publishing policies and standards, and for maintaining editorial independence from the publisher.

Selection and Evaluation of Articles
Editors must carefully select and evaluate articles submitted to the journal. They should ensure that articles are relevant to the journal's scope and audience, and that they meet the necessary scientific and academic standards. Editors should also ensure that articles are reviewed objectively and independently by the peer-review process.

Editorial Board Management
Editors are responsible for managing the editorial board of the journal. They should ensure that board members evaluate articles in a fair and unbiased manner, and that new board members are selected based on their expertise and ability to contribute to the journal. Editors should also send articles to board members with expertise in the relevant field for evaluation, and maintain regular communication with the board.

Relationship with Publishers
Editors should maintain editorial independence from the publisher, as outlined in their written contract. All editorial decisions should be made independently of the publisher and journal owner.

Blind Peer-Review Process
Editors are responsible for implementing blind peer-review policies outlined in the journal's publishing policies. They must ensure that every article is reviewed fairly, objectively, and in a timely manner.

Quality Assurance
Editors are responsible for ensuring that every article published in the journal meets the journal's publishing policies and international standards.

Protection of Personal Data
Editors are responsible for protecting the personal data of study participants and individuals featured in images or photographs included in the articles. They must reject articles that do not have documented consent from study participants. Editors are also responsible for protecting the personal data of authors, reviewers, and readers.

Ethics committee, human and animal rights
Under the title of ethical rules, the following should be adhered to:
• Ethics committee approval should be obtained separately for research conducted in all fields of science, including social sciences, and for clinical and experimental studies on humans and animals that require ethics committee approval, and this approval should be documented and stated in the article.
• Information about ethical rules should be provided under separate headings for reviewers, authors, and editors.
• Statements indicating compliance with Research and Publication Ethics should be included in the articles.
• Ethical principles should be specified under a separate heading on the journal and/or website by referring to national and international standards. For example, scientific papers submitted to journals should comply with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations and the International Standards for Editors and Authors by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
• In studies that require ethics committee approval, information about the permission (committee name, date, and number) should be included in the methods section and also on the first/last page of the article. In case reports, information about obtaining informed consent from volunteers should be included in the article.
• Copyright regulations for the use of intellectual and artistic works must be observed.

Preventing possible abuse and misuse of duty
Editors are responsible for taking measures against possible abuse and misuse of duty. In addition to conducting a thorough and objective investigation to identify and evaluate complaints related to this issue, sharing the findings related to the subject is also the responsibility of the editor.

Ensuring academic publishing integrity
Editors should ensure that errors, inconsistencies, or misleading judgments in the studies are corrected quickly.

Protection of intellectual property rights
Editors are responsible for protecting the intellectual property rights of all published articles and defending the rights of the journal and author(s) in case of possible violations. Additionally, editors are responsible for taking necessary measures to prevent content in all published articles from violating the intellectual property rights of other publications.

Constructiveness and openness to discussion
Editors should:
• Consider convincing criticisms of published works and display a constructive attitude towards these criticisms.
• Allow authors of criticized studies to respond.
• Not ignore or exclude studies containing negative results.

Complaints
Editors are responsible for carefully examining complaints received from authors, reviewers, or readers and providing illuminating and explanatory responses.

Political and Commercial Concerns
The journal owner, publisher, and any other political or commercial factors do not influence editors' independent decision-making.

Conflicts of interest
Editors ensure that the publication process of studies is completed independently and impartially, taking into account conflicts of interest between authors, reviewers, and other editors.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
The evaluation process of all works directly affects the quality of the publication with "blind peer-review". This process ensures trust through objective and independent evaluation of the publication. The evaluation process of the Journal of Sports & Science is carried out with the principle of double-blind peer-review. Reviewers cannot directly communicate with the authors; evaluations and comments are conveyed through the journal management system. In this process, evaluation forms and reviewer comments on full texts are conveyed to the author(s) through the editor. In this context, it is expected that reviewers evaluating studies for the Sport and Science Journal have the following ethical responsibilities:

• They should only accept the evaluation of works related to their expertise area.
• They should evaluate the work impartially and confidentially.
• If they believe they are facing a conflict of interest during the evaluation process, they should inform the journal editor and refuse to review the work.
• They must destroy the studies they review according to the confidentiality principle after the evaluation process. They can only use the final versions of the studies they reviewed after they have been published.
• They should conduct the evaluation objectively, only in relation to the content of the study. They should not allow nationality, gender, religious beliefs, political beliefs, and commercial concerns to affect the evaluation.
• They should conduct the evaluation in a constructive and gentle language. They should not make insulting personal comments containing hostility, defamation, and insults.
• They should conduct the evaluation they have accepted in a timely manner and in accordance with the ethical responsibilities mentioned above.
• If you encounter an unethical situation, behavior, or content outside the above-mentioned ethical responsibilities in the Sport and Science Journal, please report it via email to sevinc.namli@erzurum.edu.tr

PUBLISHING POLICY

Blind Peer Review and Evaluation Process
Blind peer review is a method applied to ensure the highest quality publication of scientific research. This method forms the basis of the objective evaluation process of scientific studies and is preferred by many scientific journals. The opinions of the referees have a decisive role in the publication quality of the Journal of Sports & Science. All studies submitted to the Journal of Sports & Science are evaluated through blind peer review according to the stages described below.

Type of Blind Peer Review
The Journal of Sports & Science uses the double-blind peer review method in the evaluation process of all studies. In the double-blind peer review method, the identities of the authors and referees are concealed.

Initial Evaluation Process
Studies submitted to the Journal of Sports & Science are initially evaluated by the editors. At this stage, studies that do not comply with the purpose and scope of the journal, that are weak in terms of language and expression rules in Turkish and English, that contain critical errors scientifically, that are not original and do not meet the publication policies are rejected. The authors of rejected studies are informed within a maximum of two months from the submission date. Studies deemed appropriate are sent to an area editor for preliminary evaluation.

Preliminary Evaluation Process
In the preliminary evaluation process, area editors examine the introduction and literature, methodology, findings, conclusion, evaluation, and discussion sections of the studies in detail in terms of the journal's publication policies and scope, and originality. Studies deemed inappropriate are returned within a maximum of one month with an evaluation report from the area editor. Studies deemed appropriate are sent for peer review.

Peer Review Process
Studies are peer-reviewed according to their content and the expertise of the referees. The area editor who reviews the study proposes at least two referees from the Journal of Sports & Science referee pool according to their areas of expertise or may propose a new referee suitable for the study's field. Referee proposals from the area editor are evaluated by the editors, and the studies are sent to the referees. Referees are required to guarantee that they will not share any process or document related to the studies they evaluate.

Reviewer Reports
Referee evaluations are generally based on the examination of the studies in terms of originality, the appropriateness of the methodology used, compliance with ethical rules, the consistent presentation of findings and conclusions, and the literature. This review includes opinions on the following:

Introduction and Literature: The evaluation report contains opinions on the presentation of the problem addressed in the study and its objectives, the importance of the subject, the scope, relevance, and originality of the literature related to the subject.

Methodology: The evaluation report contains opinions on the suitability of the method used, the selection and characteristics of the research group, as well as information on validity and reliability, data collection, and analysis process.

Findings: The evaluation report contains opinions on the presentation of the findings obtained within the scope of the method, the accuracy of the analysis methods, the consistency of the findings reached with the objectives of the research, the need for tables and graphics, and the limitations of the study.

Conclusion and Discussion: The evaluation report contains opinions on the consistency of the findings with the purpose of the research, the generalization of the findings, the contribution of the research to the literature, the suggestions for future research, and the overall evaluation of the study.

Conclusion and Recommendations: The evaluation report includes opinions on the contribution of the assessment report to the literature, recommendations for future studies, and suggestions for applications in the field.

Style and Language: The evaluation report includes opinions on whether the assessment report covers the content of the study title, uses Turkish language in accordance with the rules, and provides references and citations in accordance with APA 7 rules, consistent with the language of the full text.

Overall Evaluation: The evaluation report includes opinions on the originality of the study as a whole and its contribution to the literature and applications in the field.

It is not expected for the reviewers to make corrections based on typographical errors during the evaluation process.

Peer Review Process
The time given to reviewers for the peer review process is 6 weeks. Authors are required to complete any corrections recommended by the reviewers or editors within 1 month according to the "correction guidelines". Reviewers may decide on the suitability of a manuscript after reviewing the corrections or request multiple rounds of revisions if necessary.

Evaluation Result
The opinions of the reviewers are reviewed by the section editor within 2 weeks. Based on this review, the section editor communicates the final decision on the manuscript to the editors.

Publication Committee Decision
Editors prepare the publication committee's opinions on the manuscript based on the opinions of the section editor and the reviewers. The prepared opinions, along with the opinions of the section editor and the reviewers, are communicated to the author(s) within 1 week by the editor. Manuscripts that receive negative opinions during this process are returned without a plagiarism check. For manuscripts that receive positive opinions, the final decision is made based on the results of the plagiarism check.

How Long Does the Publication Evaluation Process Take?
Journal of Sports & Science aims to complete the publication evaluation process of submitted manuscripts within approximately 6 months. However, the period between the date on which reviewers or editors request corrections from the author(s) and the date on which the author(s) complete the corrections is not included in this 6-month period.

Withdrawal of Manuscript
Journal of Sports & Science values comprehensive and complete publishing for researchers and librarians. It is aware that publishing reliable original research articles is the key to achieving this. According to the publication policies of Spor ve Bilim Dergisi, the duties and responsibilities of the author(s) and the publication committee during the withdrawal stage of a manuscript or article are as follows:

Authors
If an author discovers an error or mistake in their published, pre-print, or under review work, they have an obligation to collaborate with the journal editor in the retraction process.

Authors who wish to request the retraction of their work in the evaluation process must fill out the "Article Retraction Request Form" and send a scanned copy with the wet signature of each author to the email address sevinc.namli@erzurum.edu.tr. The Editorial Board will review the retraction request and respond within one week. Unless the retraction request for works whose copyright has been transferred to the Spor ve Bilim Dergisi during the submission process is approved by the Editorial Board, authors cannot submit their work for evaluation to another journal.

Editors
The editorial board of the Spor ve Bilim Dergisi is obliged to initiate an investigation if there is a copyright or plagiarism suspicion for a published, accepted, or under review work.

If the Editorial Board determines that there has been a copyright or plagiarism in the work under evaluation after the investigation, it withdraws the work without evaluation and returns it to the authors with detailed explanations and citations of the detected issues.

If the Editorial Board detects a copyright infringement or plagiarism in a published or accepted work, it completes the retraction and notification process within one week.

In case of a detected ethical violation in a study:

The prefix "Retracted:" is added to the title in the electronic presentation.

Instead of the content of the Abstract and Full Text in the electronic presentation, the reasons for the retraction, detailed evidence sources, and notifications from the institutions and organizations to which the author(s) are affiliated are published, if available.

The retraction notice is announced on the homepage of the journal's website.

Starting from the first page of the electronic and printed copies of the first issue to be published after the retraction date, the title of the study is added to the table of contents as "Retracted: Study Title," and the reasons for retraction and original quotations with references are shared with the public and researchers.

The institutions to which the author(s) are affiliated are informed of the retraction notice.

The retraction notice and the above-mentioned notifications are forwarded to the institutions and organizations that index the journal and the National Library Directorate for registration in indexing systems and catalogs.

In addition, the editorial board may recommend that the publishing houses or editorial boards of previously published works by the authors, as well as the validity and reliability of published studies, be secured or retracted.

Objection of Evaluation Results
The authors have the right to object to the opinions and comments conveyed to them by the editorial board and the science board regarding the evaluation results of their studies. The authors should send their objections, based on scientific language and references, to sevinc.namli@erzurum.edu.tr by e-mail. The objections will be examined by the editorial board within one month at the latest (the opinions of the area editors and referees regarding objections to the study may be requested), and the authors will be informed of the positive or negative feedback. If the authors' objections to the evaluation results are found to be positive, the editorial board will restart the evaluation process by appointing new referees appropriate to the subject area of the study.