Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

Malazgirt Journal of Historical Research is based on the principles of honesty, transparency, and responsibility in scientific publishing. Publication processes are carried out within the framework of the Press Law, the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works, and the Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive. Furthermore, international ethical publishing standards adopted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and ERIH Plus constitute the fundamental references of the journal.

1      Press Law

2      Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works

3      Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive

4      Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Academic Publishing

General Publishing Ethics Principles

Malazgirt Journal of Historical Research requires all submitted works to be original, provide a scientific contribution, and comply with ethical principles. Ethical violations such as plagiarism, data fabrication, distortion, republication, and unfair authorship are strictly unacceptable. Transparency and accountability are observed at all stages of the publication processes.

Ethical Principles

Malazgirt Journal of Historical Research conducts its scientific publishing activities in line with the principles of honesty, transparency, respect for human rights, and academic responsibility. The journal takes national legislation together with international ethical standards as a basis for research and publication ethics; it specifically adopts the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

In this framework, it is mandatory for all works submitted to the journal to comply with ethical principles. Research involving human participants, based on data collection methods such as surveys, interviews, focus group discussions, observations, and similar, are evaluated among studies where ethical sensitivity must be observed at the highest level.

Publication of Studies Based on Surveys and Interviews

In order for research based on data obtained through methods such as surveys and interviews to be published, the following ethical conditions must be fully met:

1. Requirement for Ethics Committee Approval: For all research requiring ethics committee permission, approval must have been obtained from the authorized ethics committee of the relevant university or institution. Studies without ethics committee approval will not be taken into the evaluation process. The ethical approval obtained must ensure that the planning, data collection, and analysis processes of the research were carried out in accordance with ethical principles.
2. Clear Specification of Information Regarding Ethical Approval: In studies requiring ethics committee permission; the name of the ethics committee, the date of approval, and the decision number must be clearly and understandably stated in the Method section of the article. Additionally, this information is expected to be included on the first or last page of the article. This practice aims to ensure the transparency of the research process and allow readers to evaluate ethical compliance.
3. Informed Consent: In all studies conducted with human participants, it is mandatory to obtain informed consent from the participants. Participants must be clearly informed about the purpose, scope, potential risks, and rights of the research. In studies based on case reports, a clear statement that written consent was obtained from the relevant persons or their legal representatives must be included in the article text.
4. Confidentiality and Protection of Personal Data: Personal data obtained during the research process must be kept confidential, and information that could directly or indirectly reveal the identities of the participants must not be included in the article. National legislation and international ethical principles regarding the protection of personal data must be observed.
5. Editorial Evaluation and Audit: Editors have the right to examine the adequacy of information regarding ethics committee approval and consent statements at every stage of the evaluation process. When deemed necessary, additional documents or explanations may be requested from the authors. Studies found to be contrary to ethical principles may be rejected at any stage of the peer-review process.

Special Issue Publication Policy

In line with the proposal and approval of the Malazgirt Journal of Historical Research Editorial Board, a special issue may be published at most once a year if deemed necessary. The preparation and publication process of special issues is carried out in full compliance with the journal's general publication policies and ethical principles.

Works submitted for publication in a special issue are first subjected to editorial preliminary review. At this stage, works are evaluated in terms of compliance with the journal's aim and scope, academic quality, and basic ethical principles. Articles that pass the preliminary review are examined for compliance with the journal's writing rules and undergo a similarity scan to prevent plagiarism.

Works that successfully complete these stages are taken into the peer review process within the framework of the double-blind peer review system applied in the journal. The peer review and editorial evaluation processes carried out for special issues do not differ in any way from the scientific and ethical standards applied in the regular issues of the journal.

Correction, Retraction, and Expression of Concern Policy

In works published in Malazgirt Journal of Historical Research, errors or ethical violations that may arise in the post-publication process are handled meticulously to protect the accuracy and reliability of scientific records. In this context, editors may apply the following editorial actions depending on the nature and scope of the error:

Correction

If a published article contains spelling errors, formal inaccuracies, or limited technical deficiencies that do not directly affect the findings, interpretations, or results of the research, editors may decide to publish a correction. Corrections are published in accordance with the principle of transparency and are clearly associated with the relevant article.

Retraction

In cases where serious methodological errors that invalidate the findings and results of the research, data fabrication or distortion, plagiarism, lack of ethics committee approval, or similar severe ethical violations are detected, editors may decide to retract the article. The retraction process aims to protect the integrity of scientific literature and is announced publicly.

Expression of Concern

If there are strong suspicions that research or publication ethics have been violated regarding a published work, but a definitive conclusion cannot be reached at the current stage, editors may publish an expression of concern. This practice may be resorted to especially when there are serious doubts about the reliability of the findings, but investigations carried out by the institutions to which the authors are affiliated are delayed, remain inadequate, or appear inconclusive.

All editorial decisions regarding corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern are made based on the international guides and directives published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Plagiarism Policy, Action Plan, and Measures Applied by the Journal

The journal adopts respect for intellectual property rights as a fundamental principle; it aims to protect and encourage authors' original, ethical, and scientific works. Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and similar ethical violations are incompatible with the principles of quality, reliability, and innovation in scientific publishing and are strictly unacceptable. Therefore, all authors submitting work to the journal are expected to fully comply with the principles of publication ethics and avoid all types of plagiarism.

Plagiarism Review Process

All works submitted to the journal undergo a similarity scan using iThenticate or intihal.net software during the editorial preliminary review stage. If a suspicion of plagiarism or self-plagiarism is detected in the examinations, the author(s) are informed and requested to provide necessary explanations. Editors reserve the right to subject the work to a plagiarism review again at any stage of the evaluation and production process if they deem it necessary.

The similarity rate is expected to be below 15%. High similarity rates may lead to the work not being taken into the evaluation process, being rejected, or being removed from publication after acceptance.

Suspicion of Plagiarism and Review Stages

If a suspicion of plagiarism arises in a submitted or published work, the review is first conducted by the journal's Ethics Editor. Subsequently, the matter is evaluated by the Editorial Board. Within the scope of the review process, the journal contacts the author(s) and requests them to present their explanations and defenses within a maximum of two weeks. If no response is received from the authors within the specified period, the institution or university to which the author(s) are affiliated is contacted to request an official investigation of the claim.

Sanctions to be Applied in Case Plagiarism are Detected

1. If plagiarism is detected in a published work, the journal applies the following editorial and administrative measures:
2. The institution or university to which the author(s) are affiliated is immediately contacted so that necessary actions can be taken regarding the relevant author or authors.
3. The PDF file of the article found to contain plagiarism is removed from the journal's website; all access links to the full text are disabled. The phrase "Plagiarized Article" is added to the title of the article, and the situation is announced publicly.

The relevant author's account on the journal system is disabled, and all new applications by the author to the journal will not be accepted for a period of three years.

In all review, decision, and sanction processes related to plagiarism, the international guides and directives published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) are taken as a basis.

Publication Ethics Policy

Malazgirt Journal of Historical Research accepts full compliance with ethical principles in scientific publishing as a fundamental responsibility and meticulously monitors the compliance of all works submitted for evaluation with ethical standards. In this context, all articles submitted to Malazgirt Journal of Historical Research are inspected for plagiarism and similar ethical violations.

Malazgirt Journal of Historical Research research and publication processes are carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Press Law, the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works, and the Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive. Nevertheless, the journal aims to align its publication policies with global standards by adopting ethical principles accepted in international academic publishing.

In this direction, the journal takes the international ethical publishing principles and guides published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) as references and applies these principles at all stages of the publication processes.

Authorship

• The bibliography list must be complete.
• Plagiarism and fake data must not be included.
• Attempting to publish the same research in more than one journal should not be made; it must comply with scientific research and publication ethics. Actions contrary to scientific research and publication ethics are as follows:

1. Plagiarism: Presenting the ideas, methods, data, applications, writings, figures, or works of others as one's own, partially or completely, without citing the owners in accordance with scientific rules,
2. Fabrication: Producing data not based on research, organizing or changing the submitted or published work based on unrealistic data, reporting or publishing these, showing research that has not been done as if it has been done,
3. Falsification: Falsifying research records and obtained data, showing methods, devices, and materials not used in the research as if they were used, not evaluating data not suitable for the research hypothesis, playing with data and/or results to fit relevant theories or assumptions, falsifying or shaping research results in line with the interests of the persons and organizations supported,
4.  Republication: Presenting more than one work containing the same results of research as separate works in associate professorship exam evaluations and academic promotions,
5. Slicing: Presenting the results of research as separate works in associate professorship exam evaluations and academic promotions by dividing them into parts inappropriately in a way that disrupts the integrity of the research and making numerous publications without citing each other,
6. Unfair authorship: Including persons who do not have an active contribution among the authors, not including persons who have an active contribution among the authors, changing the author ranking without justification and inappropriately, removing the names of those who have an active contribution from the work during publication or in subsequent editions, using one's influence to have one's name included among the authors even though one does not have an active contribution,
7. Other types of ethical violations: Not clearly stating the supporting persons, institutions, or organizations and their contributions to the research in the publications of research carried out with support, not complying with ethical rules in research conducted on humans and animals, not showing respect for patient rights in publications, sharing information contained in a work assigned to be reviewed as a referee with others before publication, using resources, places, facilities, and devices provided or allocated for scientific research for purposes other than their intended use, making completely baseless, groundless, and intentional accusations of ethical violation (YÖK Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive, Article 8).

Authorship and Author Responsibilities

All people specified as authors must have made a meaningful academic contribution to the work. Authors are jointly responsible for the accuracy of the data, the complete presentation of sources, and the originality of the work. It is forbidden to submit the same work to more than one journal simultaneously. When necessary, ethics committee approval should be obtained and clearly stated in the article. Authors, editors, and reviewers are obliged to declare potential conflicts of interest. Situations that may arise from financial or institutional relations are explained transparently.

Peer Review Process and Reviewer Responsibilities

A double-blind peer review system is applied in the journal. Reviewers make their evaluations in line with the principles of impartiality, confidentiality, and academic competence. Reviewers with a conflict of interest are not included in the evaluation process. Reviewer reports are based only on scientific criteria. Reviewers should indicate relevant published but uncited works. Checked articles must be kept confidential.

Editorial Responsibilities

• Editors have all the 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 of a correction or retraction.
• They must keep the names of the reviewers confidential and prevent plagiarism/fake data. The peer review process is at the center of the success of scientific publishing. It is part of our commitment to protect and improve the peer review process, and Malazgirt Journal of Historical Research has an obligation to help the scientific community in every case related to publishing ethics, especially in case of suspicious, duplicate publications or in cases of plagiarism. When a reader notices a significant error or inaccuracy in an article published in Malazgirt Journal of Historical Research or has any complaint regarding editorial content (plagiarism, duplicate articles, etc.), they can make a complaint by sending an e-mail to mataddergi@gmail.com. We welcome complaints as they will provide opportunities for our improvement, and we aim to provide quick and constructive feedback.

Transparency and Declaration

The use of any AI tool during research, writing, or processes must be declared clearly and transparently within the article. This declaration should be included in the "Method" or "Acknowledgment" section where appropriate. In the explanation, it is necessary to specify in detail how and for what purpose these tools were used, along with the full names and version numbers of the AI tools used.

Editors should not upload unpublished articles, files belonging to them, images, or any related information to AI tools. Protecting the confidentiality of submitted content and ensuring the intellectual property rights of authors are among the fundamental responsibilities of editors.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Evaluation Process

Editors may use AI tools at certain stages of the editorial workflow -for example, initial suitability screening or reviewer selection- only with the explicit approval of the journal management. Such use of AI must be transparently reported to the authors.

Management of Suspected Misuse

When there is an uncertainty or concern regarding the use of AI, editors should establish clear and transparent communication with the authors and request supporting evidence when necessary. Situations requiring more detailed examination should be forwarded to the journal management for official evaluation.

Evaluation of Authors' Declarations Regarding AI Use

Editors are expected to carefully examine authors' declarations regarding the use of AI tools and request clarification or additional information when necessary. It is the responsibility of editors to evaluate whether the declared use of AI complies with the journal's established policies.

Monitoring Policy Developments

Editors should closely follow developments in generative AI technologies and be informed about the journal's updated policies in this field.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Policies for Reviewers

Detection of AI Use

Reviewers are encouraged to try to detect possible undeclared AI use in the articles they evaluate and to inform the editors if they suspect such a situation. However, such evaluations must be based on clear and objective evaluation criteria.

Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibility

Reviewers must not, under any circumstances, upload unpublished articles or any related documents submitted for peer review to generative AI platforms. Such an action may violate confidentiality and infringe on intellectual property rights. The evaluation process must be conducted with the reviewer's own level of expertise and knowledge.

Evaluation Ethics

Reviewers should evaluate authors' use of AI impartially; they should not allow personal opinions or biases to interfere with the journal's established policies. Any feedback or criticism regarding the use of AI must be constructive and consistent with the journal's official guidelines.

Permitted Areas of Use

Conceptual Diagrams and Explanatory Images

Generative artificial intelligence can be used to visually express theoretical ideas, conceptual frameworks, or processes. Images created in this way must accurately reflect the author's own understanding and explanations.

Data Visualization

Authors may use AI tools to improve the visual presentation of research data. These tools can be particularly useful in enhancing the design and understandability of graphs, tables, and diagrams.

Graphical Descriptions and Representative Images

Images created with AI can be used as symbolic or explanatory representations to simplify and clarify complex ideas. Such images should support the reader's better understanding of the subject and should not distort or misreflect the described concepts.

Restricted or Prohibited Areas in AI Use

Content Production

It is not appropriate for significant parts of an article -for example, the abstract, introduction, literature review, or discussion section- to be created by AI. Content produced by AI should only be evaluated as a draft or suggestion and should be carefully reviewed, rewritten, and improved by the author(s) to ensure academic rigor and originality.

Production and Interpretation of Research Findings

AI tools should not be used for the purpose of producing, reporting, or interpreting research results. All responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and validity of data analysis belongs solely to the author(s).

Reference Generation and Citation

It is strictly forbidden to produce fabricated, unverifiable, or non-existent sources with AI tools. All cited sources must be verifiable in accordance with academic standards, correctly stated, and approved by the author(s).

Academic Writing and Justification

The development of the main arguments, theoretical contributions, and main thesis of the article is the sole responsibility of the author(s). AI can only be used as an auxiliary tool in the writing process; it cannot replace the author's critical thinking or original academic contribution.

Process to be Followed in Case of Policy Violation

If the use of Artificial Intelligence tools is not clearly declared or if it is used in a way contrary to these guidelines, the article may be rejected during the evaluation process. If a violation is detected after publication, corrective actions such as publishing a correction or retracting the article may be applied. Repeated or serious violations of this policy may lead to the journal's rejection of future applications from the author(s).