Basic Ethics Policy

1. Manuscripts without ethical committee approval (excluding those not requiring such approval) will not be considered for review.
2. Manuscripts that have been partially or entirely submitted as presentations without ethical committee approval will not be considered. Please provide your presentation details in the "Candidate Article Checklist" comments section.
3. Manuscripts with a very short time period between the date of ethical approval and the submission date will not be considered.
4. All authors, reviewers, and editors must comply with ethical rules and principles during the stages of article writing, evaluation, and publication. The relevant materials and access addresses are as follows:
• COPE International Standards for Editors and Authors
• Ethical Behavior Principles for Higher Education Institutions
• Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Guidelines of Higher Education Institutions

For all manuscripts requiring ethical committee approval, please enter the committee information in the relevant section of the article template. For information about manuscripts requiring or not requiring ethical approval, click here. To learn about additional necessary permissions beyond ethical committee approval, click here. Please provide all necessary information in the "Research Ethics" subsection under the "METHOD" heading.


1. Submitted manuscripts are initially reviewed by the secretary for compliance with writing guidelines within one week.
2. Manuscripts deemed suitable and forwarded to the editor that include quantitative dimensions are assigned to the statistical editor within one week. The statistical editor and the editor’s recommended or approved revisions will then be forwarded to the subject editor.
3. Manuscripts deemed appropriate by the subject editor will be sent to two reviewers within one week, without author details.
4. Reviewers are given a 7-day period to respond to the evaluation invitation.
5. Reviewers accepting the evaluation are given 15 days to complete the review.
6. The author is given 7 days to accept or reject reviewer and editor feedback.
7. Authors who accept the reviewer and editor suggestions are given 15 days to make the necessary revisions.
8. In necessary cases, additional time may be granted to editors, subject editors, reviewers, or authors for the steps mentioned above.
9. Editing, language, statistics, page layout, and final reader processes will be completed within a maximum of 15 days.
10. Efforts are made to assign reviewers from different institutions.
11. Diversity of institutions and authors is ensured in manuscripts published in the journal.
12. Every publication is first assigned to two reviewers. In cases where reviewers disagree on acceptance or rejection, a third reviewer is assigned.
13. A maximum of two manuscripts from Dicle University will be included in each issue.
14. Subject editing and reviewing of manuscripts from Dicle University will be carried out by academics from outside the institution.
15. Multiple manuscripts from the same author will not be accepted for publication.
16. Two manuscripts from the same author will not be published in consecutive issues. A minimum of one issue must be published after the last work for a new submission to be considered.
17. Manuscripts may be rejected by the editor or subject editor before being sent to reviewers, with justification.
18. Publication in our journal is free of charge.
19. Access to articles published in our journal is free.

1. Submit only original manuscripts that have not been published elsewhere.
2. Do not submit the same work to different journals for simultaneous evaluation.
3. List all contributors to the work as authors.
4. Arrange authors in order according to their contribution.
5. Cite all references.
6. Adhere to the journal’s article template.
7. Follow academic writing principles.
8. Adhere to APA citation rules for bibliography.
9. Obtain the necessary ethical committee approval and include relevant details in the article template.
10. Avoid plagiarism and ensure similarity does not exceed 15%.
11. Consider reviewer and editor comments and provide justification for rejecting any suggestions.
12. Indicate all changes made in the document in red font.
13. Obtain necessary permissions for using scales, photos, etc., from different individuals.
14. Comply with copyright regulations.
15. Inform the editor of any errors identified before or after publication.
16. Disclose any conflicts of interest.
17. Conceal author identity and any information that could reveal it during the review process.
18. If the work has been presented at a scientific meeting, taken from a thesis, or part of a project, indicate this information in a footnote after the acceptance stage.
19. Authors are fully responsible for complying with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) international standards.

1. Accept manuscripts within their area of expertise for review.
2. Evaluate the work based solely on scientific and ethical criteria, avoiding bias.
3. Adhere to the evaluation time frame.
4. Provide detailed reasons for accepting or rejecting the work.
5. Do not share the work with third parties before publication.
6. Do not use data, information, or findings from the work for personal purposes.
7. Respect the originality of the author within scientific and ethical frameworks.

1. Provide informative content for authors, readers, and reviewers.
2. After an initial review for writing rules, ethical principles, academic writing, and methodological accuracy, assign a subject editor.
3. Monitor article flow in the journal and ensure requirements for article processing are met.
4. Ensure scientific and ethical principles are followed in the publication acceptance process.
5. Be mindful of conflicts of interest when assigning reviewers.
6. Maintain impartiality when assigning subject editors and reviewers.
7. Do not disclose information about manuscripts submitted for publication to third parties.
8. Respond to author inquiries.
9. Ensure transparency in the review process.
10. Keep the review process as brief as possible.
11. Announce changes made in the journal.
12. Provide constructive and polite feedback to authors, avoiding judgmental and rude responses; encourage reviewers to do the same.
13. Provide reasoned explanations for rejections made.
14. Order articles for publication based on submission and acceptance dates, avoiding unfair prioritization.
15. Keep reviewer details confidential from authors and author details confidential from reviewers.
16. Keep the list of reviewers and subject editors current, diverse, and active.
17. Support freedom of thought within the legal, ethical, and scientific framework when accepting manuscripts for publication.
18. Editors are responsible for adhering to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) international standards.

1. Accept subject editor invitations only within their area of expertise.
2. Avoid assigning reviewers before conducting an initial evaluation.
3. Monitor article flow in the journal and ensure requirements for article processing are met.
4. Ensure scientific and ethical principles are followed in the publication acceptance process.
5. Be mindful of conflicts of interest when assigning reviewers.
6. Maintain impartiality when assigning reviewers.
7. Do not disclose information about manuscripts submitted for publication to third parties.
8. Respond to author inquiries.
9. Ensure transparency in the review process.
10. Keep the review process as brief as possible.
11. Announce changes made in the journal.
12. Provide constructive and polite feedback to authors, avoiding judgmental and rude responses; encourage reviewers to do the same.
13. Provide reasoned explanations for rejections made.
14. Keep reviewer details confidential from authors and author details confidential from reviewers.
15. Subject editors are responsible for adhering to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) international standards.

1. Review the "Data Analysis" section of quantitative and mixed-methods research.
2. Review the "Findings" section of quantitative and mixed-methods research.
3. Make decisions on the appropriateness of the work based on the factors discussed in points 1 and 2 and share this decision with the editor.
4. Recommend statistical corrections to authors when necessary.

1. Avoid intervening in the content of the work.
2. Review the work for grammatical accuracy and offer suggestions.
3. Review the work for spelling accuracy and offer suggestions.
4. Review the work for punctuation accuracy and offer suggestions.
5. Avoid suggesting changes that alter the author's intended meaning.

1. Compare the English abstract or extended summary with the Turkish content.
2. Suggest changes that are contextually appropriate.
3. Review the English abstract or extended summary for grammatical accuracy and offer suggestions.
4. Review the English abstract or extended summary for spelling accuracy and offer suggestions.
5. Review the English abstract or extended summary for punctuation accuracy and offer suggestions.
6. Avoid suggesting changes that alter the author's intended meaning.

1. Assess whether the work is formatted appropriately and provide feedback to the author.
2. Ensure the necessary formatting adjustments are made.

1. Evaluate the submitted manuscripts according to the writing rules and basic sections.
2. Return unsuitable manuscripts to the author for necessary changes.
3. Forward suitable manuscripts to the editor.