Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

Principles of Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics can be defined as a self-regulation mechanism that insists on honesty on behalf of authors, reviewers and publishers to establish higher standards of editorial handling. Ethical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public confidence in scientific findings, and respect for people’s opinions.


• Honest researchers do not plagiarize.

• They do not cite sources incorrectly.
• They do not hide objections that they cannot refute.
• They do not distort opposing views.
• They do not destroy or hide data.


Peer-reviewed studies are studies that support and implement the scientific method. At this point, it is of great importance that all parties involved in the publication process (authors, readers and researchers, publisher, referees and editors) comply with ethical principles. Journal of Sociological Context adheres to national and international standards in research and publication ethics. It complies with Press Law, Intellectual and Artistic Works Law and Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive. Journal of Sociological Context has adopted the International Ethical Publishing Principles published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). It also undertakes to comply with the Decisions of the Türkiye Editors’ Workshop.


Press Law (National Legislation)
Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (National Legislation)
Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive (National Legislation)
Transparency and Best Practice in Academic Publishing (International Criteria)
Türkiye Editors’ Workshop Decisions (National Criteria)



Republishing is the publication of the same article or substantially similar articles in more than one journal. The editor returns this type of article without review. After that, the editor may impose an embargo on the author attempting to republish for a certain period of time, and explain this situation to the public in the journal in which the author has previously published (perhaps as a simultaneous announcement with the editor of the journal that published the previous article), or apply all of these measures together.


Simultaneous submission of the same study to more than one journal

Authors cannot submit the same article to more than one journal at the same time. The editor reserves the right to consult the other editor(s) receiving the article if s/he learns of possible simultaneous submission. In addition, the editor may return the article without review or reject it without considering the reviews, or take this decision by discussing it with the other relevant editor(s) and may decide not to accept article submissions from the authors for a certain period of time. S/he can also write to the authors’ employers or implement all of these measures together.


Checking to Prevent Plagiarism

Plagiarism is presenting the ideas, methods, data, practices, writings, figures or works of others as their own work, in whole or in part, without attribution in accordance with scientific rules.
Journal of Sociological Contextscans all submitted articles for plagiarism. The studies submitted for review are checked for plagiarism using Turnitin software. The similarity rate is expected to be less than 20%. The main measure of similarity is that the author complies with the citation and citation rules. Even though the similarity rate seems as 1%, plagiarism may still be in question if the citation and citation are not duly made. In this respect, reference and citation rules should be known and carefully applied by the author.
Plagiarism, duplication, false authorship/denied authorship, research/data fabrication, article slicing, slicing, copyright infringement and concealment of conflict of interest are considered unethical behaviors. All articles that do not comply with accepted ethical standards are removed from the publication. This includes articles with possible irregularities and inconsistencies detected after publication.



Forgery means to produce data that is not based on research, to edit or change the presented or published work on the basis of unrealistic data, to report or publish them, to make a research that has not been done appear as if it has been done.
It also means to falsify the research records and obtained data, to present the methods, devices and materials not used in the research as if they were used, to evaluate the data that are not suitable for the research hypothesis, to tamper with data and/or results in order to fit relevant theories or assumptions, and to falsify or shape research results in line with the interests of sponsoring individuals and organizations.


Protection of Participants’ Personal Data

Journal of Sociological Context requires that all research involving personal or sensitive data or material relating to human participants that is not legally available to the public is subject to formal ethical review.


Handling with Allegations of Research Abuse

Journal of Sociological Context adheres to COPE’s Ethics Toolkit for a Successful Editorial. Editors of the Journal of Sociological Context; will take action to prevent the publication of articles in which plagiarism, citation manipulation, data tampering, data fabrication, and other research misconduct occur. In no event will the editors of Journal of Sociological Context knowingly allow such abuse to occur. If the editors of Journal of Sociological Context become aware of any allegations of research misconduct related to an article published in their journal, they will follow COPE’s guidelines regarding the allegations.


Ethical Violation Notices

When readers notice an important error or mistake in an article published in the Journal of Sociological Context, or have any complaints about editorial content (plagiarism, duplicate articles, etc.), they can send an e-mail to We welcome applications as it will provide an opportunity for us to improve, and we respond quickly and constructively.


Correction, Withdrawal, Expression of Concern

Editors may consider issuing a correction if minor errors are detected in the published article that do not affect the findings, comments, and conclusions. Editors should consider retracting the article in case of major errors/violations that invalidate the findings and conclusions. If there is a possibility of misuse of research or publication by the authors; If there is evidence that the findings are unreliable and that the authors’ institutions did not investigate the incident, or if the potential investigation seems unfair or inconclusive, editors should consider issuing a statement of concern. COPE and ICJME guidelines are taken into account with regard to correction, withdrawal or expression of concern.


Publication of Studies Based on Survey and Interview

Journal of Sociological Context adopts the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics(COPE) “Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors” and “Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers” in order to establish ethical assurance in scientific periodicals. In this context, the following points should be followed in the studies submitted to the journal:
1- For research conducted in all branches of science that requires ethics committee approval (ethics committee approval should be obtained, this approval should be stated and documented in the article.
2- In research that requires ethics committee permission, information about the permission (name of the committee, date and number) in the method section, and also on one of the first/last pages of the article; In case reports, information about signing the informed consent form should be included in the article.


Special Issue Publishing Policy

A special issue can be published in our journal once a year upon the request of the Editorial Board. Articles sent for inclusion in a special issue are first subjected to editorial review. Then it is examined in terms of compliance with the writing rules of the journal and similarity is scanned to prevent plagiarism. After these stages, it is taken into the peer review process in which the double-blind model is used.


Editorial Confidentiality Obligation

The editors of Journal of Sociological Context treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents; this means that they will not disclose information about an article to anyone without the permission of the authors. During the article review process, the following people can access the articles: Editors, Reviewers, Editorial Board Members. The only situation in which details about a manuscript may be passed on to a third party without the consent of the authors is that if the editor suspects serious research misconduct.


Allegations-Suspects of Scientific Misconduct

Scientific misconduct has different definitions. We address these issues on a case-by-case basis, while following the guidance established by the major editorial ethics institutions. If the editor suspects an ethical violation or if there is an alleged violation, they are obliged to take action. This task covers both published and unpublished articles. The editor should not simply reject articles that raise concerns about potential misconduct. Ethically, s/he is obliged to follow the alleged lawsuits. The editor should follow the COPE flowcharts where appropriate. Editors should first seek a response from anyone suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the answer, they should ask the relevant employers or institution to investigate. The editor should use all reasonable efforts to ensure that an appropriate investigation into the alleged misconduct is carried out; if this does not happen, the editor should make all reasonable attempts to persist in finding a solution to the problem. This is an arduous but important task.
Journal of Sociological Context adheres to COPE’s Ethics Toolkit for a Successful Editorial. Editors of the Journal of Sociological Context; will take action to prevent the publication of articles in which plagiarism, citation manipulation, data tampering, data fabrication, and other research misconduct occur. In no event will Journal of Sociological Context or its editors knowingly allow such misuse to occur. If the editors of Journal of Sociological Context become aware of any allegations of research misconduct related to an article published in their journal, they will follow COPE’s guidelines regarding the allegations.
Reviewers should notify the Editor when they suspect research or publication misconduct. The editor is responsible for carrying out the necessary actions by following the COPE recommendations.
Journal of Sociological Context is committed to applying to COPE flowcharts when faced with allegations of misconduct in the following or similar matters.

• What to do when republishing is suspected
• What to do when plagiarism is suspected
• What to do when fabricated data is suspected
• What to do in requests for change of authorship
• What to do when an undisclosed conflict of interest is suspected
• What to do when unfair or gift authorship is suspected
• What to do when an ethical problem is suspected in an article
• What to do when notified directly with ethical violation suspected e-mail, etc.
• What to do when a suspected ethical violation is announced via social media


Complaint Procedure

This procedure applies to complaints about content, procedures, or policies that are the responsibility of Journal of Sociological Context or our editorial staff. Complaints can provide an opportunity and incentive for improvement, and we aim to respond quickly, courteously and constructively.
The complaint must relate to the content, procedures or policies that are the responsibility of Journal of Sociological Context or our editorial staff. Complaints should be sent directly to and will be treated confidentially. The editor immediately responds to complaints. The editor follows the procedure outlined in the COPE flowchart regarding complaints.

Complaints are reviewed by the relevant member of the editorial team and if they cannot be resolved, the following processes are followed:
• If this initial response is deemed inadequate, the complainant may request that their complaint be forwarded to a more senior member of the journal.
• Complaints can be forwarded to the editor-in-chief if the complainant is not satisfied.
• A full response will be given within two weeks if possible.
COPE publishes a code of practice for editors of scientific journals. This will facilitate the resolution of disputes with editors, journals and publishers, but only after the journal’s own complaints procedures are exhausted.


Appeal Process

We welcome serious objections to reviews by editors and reviewers. If you think we rejected your article because we misunderstood the scientific content, please send an objection message to our editorial team at Do not try to submit a revised version of your article at this stage. If, after reading your objection letter, we understand that your objection is justified, we may invite you to submit a revised version of your article. Thus, your work is sent back to the external referee process. Please include as much detail as possible in the appeal letter. Finally, we can only consider one objection per article, so please take the time and effort to write the letter in detail to make your objection clear – you stand a chance, so use it well. We have found that prolonged negotiation over rejected articles is often unsatisfactory for both authors and editors, so we do not process multiple appeals for the same work.


Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest arises when professional judgment regarding a primary interest may be affected by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal competition). We believe that in order to make the best decision on how to handle an article, we need to know the competing interests of the authors and that if we publish the article, the readers should know them too.
Conflicts of Interest is any financial or other interest that may conflict with one’s work, significantly impair objectivity, or provide an unfair advantage to any person or entity. All financial support resources and the role of sponsors in the study should be explained during the conduct of the research and the preparation of the article. If there is no source of funding, this should also be stated. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that need to be disclosed include consultations, hiring, grants. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
Journal of Sociological Context has a set process for handling submissions from editors, staff, or editorial board members to ensure unbiased review. Such posts are primarily directed to other journals. If this is not possible, the post’s owner will be suspended from the journal. These submissions are reviewed through a double-blind process.
The editor should not be involved in decisions about articles written by him or his family members. In addition, such work should be subject to all the usual procedures of the journal. The editor should follow the ICMJE guidelines regarding disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.


Principles of Research Ethics

Journal of Sociological Context observes the highest standards in research ethics and adopts the international research ethics principles defined below. The compliance of the articles with the ethical rules is the responsibility of the authors.
• Principles of integrity, quality and transparency should be ensured in designing the research, reviewing the design and conducting the research.
• The research team and participants should be fully informed about the purpose of the research, its methods and possible uses; necessities and risks, if any, of participating in the research.
• Confidentiality of information provided by research participants and confidentiality of respondents should be ensured. Research should be designed in a way that preserves the autonomy and dignity of the participants.
• Research participants should take part in the research voluntarily and should not be under any coercion.
• Harm to the participants should be avoided. The research should be planned in such a way that it does not put the participants at risk.
• Be clear about research independence; If there is a conflict of interest, it should be stated.
• In experimental studies with human subjects, written informed consent must be obtained from participants who decide to participate in the research. The consent of the legal guardian of children and custodians or those with a confirmed mental illness must be obtained.
• If the study will be carried out in any institution or organization, approval must be obtained from that institution or organization.
• In studies with a human element, it should be stated in the “methods” section that “informed consent” was obtained from the participants and ethics committee approval was obtained from the institution where the study was conducted.

Translate »