Etik İlkeler ve Yayın Politikası

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES, PUBLISHING POLICY, AND ARTICLE EVALUATION PROCESS

Journal of Health Systems and Policies (JHESP) is a peer-reviewed journal published in accordance with the ethical principles and rules stated below, with the aim of publishing legal and interdisciplinary scientific studies related to health systems, health policies, and medical sciences.

All articles must be original, unpublished elsewhere, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Each study is evaluated by one of the editors and at least two blind reviewers. Plagiarism, duplication, fake authorship or denial of authorship, fabrication of research/data, article slicing, slicing for publication, copyright infringement, hiding conflicts of interest, and similar situations are considered unethical behaviors.

JHESP adheres to the publication ethics principles and standards set by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors). Editors, reviewers, and authors of our journal are expected to comply with international standards in scientific publishing.

Authors should not submit any work that has been published elsewhere or submitted for publication elsewhere to the Journal of Health Systems and Policies (JHESP). They must ensure that proper attribution is given when using the work or expressions of others. Plagiarism can take many forms, from the author claiming an entire work as their own to copying significant portions (without citation) or using data obtained from others' research.

Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. All submitted articles should be scanned by authors for plagiarism (similarity). JHESP conducts plagiarism checks through the Turnitin software.

PUBLISHING POLICY

Journal of Health Systems and Policies (JHESP) is published by Istanbul Medipol University. The journal prioritizes easy access to information by providing open, electronic, and free access to published content. However, it aims to protect the ownership and copyright of each published article and assumes the responsibility of meticulously maintaining records of each copy.

Journal of Health Systems and Policies (JHESP) offers all content free of charge in line with an open access policy. This allows anyone to access the content from the journal's website and freely download articles published by the journal.

All submissions to the journal undergo a double-blind review process. This process adopts an evaluation approach that focuses solely on the content of the article, regardless of the author's personal characteristics (such as identity, nationality, religious beliefs, political views, etc.). This approach supports an objective and fair review process.

Istanbul Medipol University covers all expenses of the journal. JHESP does not charge any fees for submission, processing, publication, or other processes. This aims to financially support academics and authors contributing to the journal.

The views expressed in the articles published in the journal are those of the authors. Istanbul Medipol University and JHESP do not accept any responsibility for the views expressed in the published content.

ARTICLE EVALUATION PROCESS

Submitted articles to the journal undergo a thorough evaluation process, which includes initial screening, peer review, language check, and, if necessary, revision stages. Articles that do not comply with the journal's scope and objectives, have weak academic language and grammar, contain scientifically unacceptable errors, lack originality, or do not align with the publication principles of the journal are directly rejected by the journal editors. Authors of rejected articles are provided with a notification containing the reasons for rejection.

Articles deemed suitable by the JHESP editors during the initial screening stage are forwarded to the Section (Field) Editor for a detailed review focusing on the content area of the article.

Section (Field) Editor Evaluation Stage

Academic papers that successfully complete the initial screening stage are reviewed by Section Editors. At this stage, the Section Editor thoroughly examines the methodology, findings, and conclusions sections of the study, particularly focusing on the content's originality. The Section Editor checks whether the study conforms to the academic standards of the relevant field, addresses gaps in the literature, and whether the sections of the study are organized in a manner suitable for an academic work. Additionally, the Section Editor reviews the alignment of the study with the journal's objectives and scope and its compatibility with the publication principles from an academic perspective.

Following the evaluation by the Section Editor, works deemed unsuitable for referral to reviewers and rejected are notified to the authors with a report containing the reasons for rejection within one month from the submission date. Conversely, for works deemed suitable for referral to reviewers, the peer review process is initiated. At this stage, the Section Editor assigns two reviewers to evaluate the study, considering the content of the study.

Peer Review Stage

Articles that successfully pass the Initial Review Stage and the Section Editor evaluation stage are assigned to at least two reviewers by the Section Editors, taking into account their areas of expertise. At this stage, the Section Editor may select reviewers from the JHESP reviewer pool or suggest new reviewers suitable for the study's field.

When reviewers agree to evaluate the assigned article, they commit to evaluating the study within the specified time frame via the DergiPark system and to submit their evaluation reports. Reviewers also commit to evaluating the study ethically and maintaining confidentiality of the information within the framework of privacy rules.

Peer Review Process

Assignment of reviewers for the article is carried out by the Section Editor. The invitation email is automatically sent via the DergiPark system. Reviewers must evaluate the study within the time frame specified by the editors based on the date they accept the invitation.

If reviewers do not evaluate the study within a specified period, the Section Editor may assign the study to different reviewers for evaluation. If one reviewer's report recommends acceptance while the other recommends rejection, the Section Editor may send the study to a third reviewer. The Section Editor communicates the final decision about the study to the Editors to initiate the publication board decision-making process.

Submitted articles undergo a detailed evaluation process, including initial screening, peer review, language check, and, if necessary, correction stages. Articles that do not comply with the journal's scope and objectives, have weak academic language and grammar, contain scientifically unacceptable errors, lack originality, or do not align with the publication principles of the journal are directly rejected by the journal editors. Authors of rejected articles are provided with a notification containing the reasons for rejection.

Peer Review Reports

The Peer Review Stage concludes with the reviewer completing the evaluation report. The reviewer completes the Evaluation Form, evaluating the article. This form covers various aspects such as the originality of the study, the suitability of the abstract, the adequacy of the literature review, the appropriateness of the selected methodology, the accurate presentation of the findings, the adequacy of the conclusions and discussions, whether the figures, tables, and charts used in the study are prepared in accordance with scientific standards, and whether the references are relevant and sufficient. The reviewer also evaluates whether the study was conducted in accordance with scientific research rules, whether the terminology used in the study is accurate, whether the writing is in accordance with scientific standards, and whether it adheres to grammatical rules.

At the stage of General Evaluation Result and Decision about the study, the reviewer declares the General Evaluation Result of the Study and his/her decision regarding the publication of the Study. The decision options for the reviewer are acceptance, minor revision, major revision, and rejection. In addition, reviewers can write their opinions on the study in the "Comments, Criticisms, and Suggestions" section to be conveyed to the authors or add files for the authors to see if they want corrections.

The Section Editor may request authors to make corrections based on the opinions of the reviewers who evaluated the publication. Authors are expected to revise their publications according to these corrections. The final decision regarding the publication of the study is made by the Publication Board.

Authors have the right to provide explanatory evidence against the evaluation views of the reviewers. Objections are evaluated by the Publication Board, and if necessary, a different reviewer opinion may be sought for the submitted publication.

Digital Archiving and Preservation Policy

It is critically important for authors submitting work to the Journal of Health Systems and Policies (JHESP) to fully adhere to ethical responsibilities and behave in accordance with scientific standards. In this context, the fundamental ethical responsibilities that authors need to pay attention to are as follows:
  • Authors should not submit any work that has been previously published elsewhere or is under consideration for publication by JHESP.
  • Authors are responsible for the scientific and ethical compliance of their work. By submitting their work to the journal, authors are deemed to have committed that the work is original, has not been previously published elsewhere, and is not being considered for publication elsewhere, in another language.
  • Contributing authors and sources should be appropriately acknowledged and cited in the references section. All individuals who contribute to the work but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the "acknowledgements" section. Authors should take care to only acknowledge those who provided technical support, assistance in writing, or financial support.
  • All authors should have direct academic and scientific contributions to the submitted work, and the order of names should be determined by mutual agreement.
  • Alterations to author responsibilities for a study that has already entered the review process (such as adding authors, changing the order of authors, or removing authors) should not be proposed.
  • Authors should accurately cite the sources used in the writing of their work in accordance with ethical principles.
  • JHESP may request information or raw data from authors during the review processes, and authors should be prepared to provide the requested data and information.
  • If authors notice any errors in their work during the review and early viewing stages or after the work has been electronically published, they should contact the editorial board to initiate notification, correction, or retraction processes.

The Editorial Board of the Journal of Health Systems and Policies (JHESP) commits to full compliance with the following ethical values:

  • The Editorial Board pledges to actively strive to enhance and improve the quality of the journal.
  • The Editorial Board supports the freedom of expression for authors.
  • The Editorial Board commits to taking necessary measures to prevent scientific and ethical misconduct such as plagiarism and citation fraud.
  • The Editorial Board has the final decision regarding the publication of academic works submitted to the journal. Factors such as quality, timeliness, originality, and contribution to the field are taken into account when determining which works to publish.
  • The Editorial Board is responsible for ensuring the proper conduct of the publication process for all works submitted to the journal. In this context, it is necessary for the Editorial Board to make independent decisions considering public interest.
  • The Editorial Board guarantees that all information regarding submitted works will remain confidential until the work is published.
  • The Editorial Board is obligated to protect and defend the intellectual property rights of published works and take necessary measures to ensure that published works do not infringe upon the intellectual property rights of others. Conducting plagiarism checks and ensuring originality are among the responsibilities of the Editorial Board.
  • When making decisions regarding works, the Editorial Board should consider the originality, contribution to the field, validity and reliability of the research method, clarity of expression, and the purpose and scope of the work. The Editorial Board cannot consider the race, ethnicity, gender, beliefs, or thoughts of the authors for any reason.
  •  The Editorial Board should evaluate the works in terms of grammar rules.
  • The Editorial Board pledges to provide explanatory and informative notifications and feedback to authors.
  • The Editorial Board determines and implements policies regarding publication, blind peer review, evaluation process, and ethical principles.
  • Blind peer review, which is the most commonly used method to ensure high quality in scientific publications, is an important strategy adopted to conduct the evaluation process objectively. According to the double-blind peer review strategy, authors submitting manuscripts to the journal cannot access information about which reviewers will evaluate their manuscripts. Similarly, reviewers evaluating manuscripts do not know which author(s) they are evaluating. In other words, the identities of authors and reviewers during the evaluation process are kept confidential, ensuring the objectivity of the evaluation process.
  • Two reviewers are assigned by the article section editor(s) to evaluate the content of the works and the expertise of the reviewers. At this stage, all reviewer evaluation reports are submitted electronically and anonymously. The names of the reviewers are not disclosed by the journal to maintain the integrity of the double-blind peer review process. Upon request, a written document confirming their contribution as reviewers may be provided to the reviewers. Authors cannot directly communicate with reviewers, and evaluations and reviewer reports are transmitted to responsible authors through the journal management system. During this process, evaluation forms and reviewer reports are transmitted to responsible authors through the editor.
  • Double-blind peer review helps editors interact with authors. Authors have the opportunity to improve their work through the critiques in the reviewer reports, and editors play an important role in this dialogue.

The reviewers of the Journal of Health Systems and Policies (JHESP) commit to full compliance with the following ethical values:

  • Reviewers commit to evaluating only the works related to their own areas of expertise. If a reviewer lacks sufficient knowledge about the subject of the work or deems it impossible to provide timely feedback, they must inform the Editorial Board as soon as possible.
  • Reviewers contribute to the decisions made by the Editorial Board regarding the works they evaluate. If necessary, they communicate with the authors through the Editorial Board for the improvement of the work. The confidentiality of reviewers is essential during this process.
  • Reviewers are responsible for evaluating academic works submitted for review impartially and confidentially. Within this framework, they cannot share or use the information in the work with others without the explicit permission of the author before it is published.
  • If reviewers detect any copyright infringement or plagiarism in the work submitted for review, or if they notice any similarity with previously published work or information, they must inform the Editorial Board as soon as possible.
  • At the end of the evaluation process, reviewers are obliged to convey their views based on scientific criteria through the "Reviewer Evaluation Form." If a "Reviewer Evaluation Form" that does not comply with these conditions is identified, the editorial board may contact the reviewer for review and correction.
  • Reviewers are responsible for completing their evaluations within the specified timeframe.

Creative Commons License
Contents of the Journal of Health Systems and Policies (JHESP) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.