Journal of Sociological Context adopts COPE’s guidelines regarding “allegations of misconduct” in cases of misconduct and violation. Hence, the journal defines in detail the liabilities of the publisher, editors, reviewers, the Scientific Board and authors prior, during and after the publication process in the Publication Ethics.
In cases when an article is submitted to various publishers, comparing different versions of a single work submitted to various journals and explanations of authors and enquirers regarding the work in question enables to cooperate and make an effort in cases of suspected misconduct and violation and to act accordingly together with enquirers/authors and/or their institutions.
Having regard to the significance of confidentiality in scientific publication process, Journal of Sociological Context shares information regarding authors and reviewers only in order to prevent suspected misconducts and to fulfill the obligation to handle such cases.
Journal editors and theme editors have to make the first enquiries in suspected cases before sharing such information. Thus, sharing information is only at stake when the author does not respond, provides insufficient explanation or the said allegation of misconduct might affect more than one journal.
If required, such information is only shared with editors whom are believed to have knowledge of the subject in question, and the shared information is limited with factual content only.
Editors and theme editors guarantee to protect confidentiality of communication to the greatest extent possible.
Journal of Sociological Context’s publisher is Prof. Suat Kolukırık.
The publisher guarantees that the stakeholders maintain the publication ethics principles, that access to the journal’s contents is uninterrupted and free of charge, and that the publications are archived and protected.
The publisher is obliged to take the necessary actions to clarify any suspected violations of publication ethics such as misconduct, plagiarism, conflict of interest and text recycling.
2. The Scientific Board
The Scientific Board of Journal of Sociological Context meets at least biannually.
Members of the Scientific Board accept the publication ethics principles and policies, and evaluate decisions regarding these principles and policies.
They determine themes and relevant editors for each theme.
They recommend members for the Scientific Board.
They make proposals in order to improve the national and international recognition of the journal.
Members of the Scientific Board have to inform editors of the journal to clarify any suspected violations of publication ethics such as misconduct, plagiarism, conflict of interest, copyright infringement and text recycling.
They make recommendations of citation indexes in which the journal might be included in order to improve its academic quality.
Sociological Context 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”, as open access published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Submitted articles are evaluated regardless of authors’ race, ethnicity, gender, worldview and beliefs by the editors.
Editors make comprehensive and constructive evaluations of submitted articles.
The journal includes writings that do not require a peer review process such as essays and activity reviews. The difference between reviewed publications and the publications that do not require a peer review process is distinctly made clear. If required, editors might make comments and suggestions as to under which category submitted articles should be published, and share them clearly with authors. In such cases, authors and/or editors make the final decision.
Editors are responsible for making contact between authors and reviewers during the peer review process. They conduct the process by documenting the whole process meticulously from the date of submission to the date of publication with academic courtesy. If need be, editors feel free to give account of the whole peer review process for each article (provided that they look after the personal rights of authors and reviewers and the journal’s principles of confidentiality).
In case that three reviewers present different opinions on an article, editors have to seek the opinion of a fourth reviewer.
Editors should withdraw themselves from their editorial task if they are in conflicts of interest or in relationships that could lead to a conflict of interest regarding articles. Other editors who will continue as editorial staff shall report on the current status of the financial interests or other disputes (which may affect the editorial process) and withdraw themselves from the editorial staff in case of any conflict of interest. The editorial staff should not use any of the information obtained from the reviewed article for personal interest.
If editors find errors in a published article, and if this error invalidates the work or its important sections, it’s non-ethical, it contains plagiarism, they withdraw it. In this case the editors are responsible for providing a statement which clearly indicates the withdrawal of the article and an explanation of the reason for the withdrawal, besides, by providing a link which connects two versions, grant access to all readers in online platforms.
Authors have academic, ethical and social responsibilities.
Authors cannot submit more than one article for the same issue of the journal.
Article submission dates are indicated in the call for papers for the upcoming issue. Submissions made after the deadline will not be evaluated.
Responsibility for ethical violations such as plagiarism, improper citation, missing a citation, not mentioning the names of grants and supporting institutions rests with the author. In such cases, articles are refused.
Authors should state the resources of the work/research support they get in their articles.
Authors are responsible for revealing any financial and personal relationships which may cause bias regarding their work when they submit a work in any kind or format. In this context, authors have to sign the Copyright Transfer and the Conflict of Interest Forms and upload them on the system during the submission process.
Authors are responsible for the fact that the ideas and expressions of the manuscript they submit for publication have not been used in their previously published works. If these ideas and expressions have already been used, they should be indicated by references in necessary places. Otherwise, the authors are obligated to correct overlapping parts upon the editors’ request or to do their part for publication of a correction if the article has been published.
Authors undertake that, submitted manuscripts to Journal of Sociological Context have not been previously published, or scheduled and/or evaluated to be published in another journal.
Authors should be able to render an account of validity and ethics for each part of the work.
If there are multiple authors who contribute to the work, the name order of these authors which has been sent during submission process should be co-decision of the authors.
The responsibilities to include only those who have active contributions in the work as authors, not to include non-active contributors among the authors, to sequence the authors, and to provide appropriate justification for any changes in the author sequence while evaluation process is in progress, rest with the author. The author should be able to provide explanation regarding all these matters if it is deemed necessary by the journal editors.
If the authors find errors and mistakes after publication of their work, they should immediately notify the editors of the journal so that appropriate action can be taken.
Authors cannot publish the same article or part of it in multiple journals without providing an appropriate reason, without permission or cross-reference. Authors are obligated to comply with the license and copyright transfer agreement they have signed.
They adopt double-blind peer review process and fulfill the requirements of it.
When a peer review has been requested, they should respond positively or negatively within a reasonable time period.
They should reveal if they do not have expertise on the subject regarding the work, or if they are able to evaluate only a part of the work.
They should accept carrying out the evaluation within a mutually agreed time period and they should inform in case of delay.
Reviewers should reveal to the editors any conflict of interest which may cause bias in their reviews regarding article, and they should refrain from reviewing the article in such cases.
Reviewers are responsible for informing the editors when they identify text recycling in a submitted article.
Reviewers should not use any information within the article which is about their field of interest, before the reviewed article is published.
If they think that they cannot make a fair and unbiased assessment, they should report it.
They should refuse to review manuscript if it is very similar to their work which they have been preparing or in the evaluation process.
– They should inform the journal if they notice a conflict of interest arise, which was non-existent when they accepted peer reviewing.
– They should keep all the writings and peer reviews confidential.
-They should ensure that their evaluations are only scientific; they will not be affected positively or negatively due to personal, financial or intellectual bias.
– They should not make personal comments or unjustified accusations against the author.
– They should be specific in their critics; for example they should concretize a general statement such as “a previous study”, this will help the editors to act fairly to the authors in the evaluation and decision-making process.
– They should remember it is author’s work and if the manuscript is written clearly, they should not attempt to rewrite it in the way they choose; but recommendations of clarification of expressions are important.
– They shouldn’t contact authors directly, without informing the journal.
– They should recognize the sensitivities that may arise out of writing in another language and express it in a respectful and appropriate manner.
-They should not recommend to reference works just to be visible or increase the number of referrals of themselves or their colleagues. If a recommendation is made, it should be justified scientifically.
– They should maintain keeping the work and the evaluation process confidential.
– In case a situation arises which may affect their comments and feedbacks, they should notify the journal.
– They should try to respond to requests from the journal for revision and reassessment.
6. Theme Editors
Theme editors of Journal of Sociological Context acknowledge the scientific publication ethics of the journal and fulfill their responsibilities accordingly.
Theme editors undertake the responsibilities of publication ethics which are described for the editors of the journal, from call for papers for the issue they prepare until the publication of that issue.
The theme editors are obligated to respond to the questions addressed by the journal and share the required documents if necessary under the code of ethics after publication of the issue they are responsible for.
Persons are also committed to fulfilling the responsibilities listed above when they accept theme editorship proposal of Journal of Sociological Context.