Ethical Principles for Scholarly Publication
A self-regulatory mechanism known as publication ethics demands honesty from authors, referees, and publishers in order to raise the standards for editorial processing. High-quality scientific publications, public confidence in scientific discoveries, and respect for people's viewpoints are all made possible by ethical standards for publication.
• Sincere scholars avoid plagiarism.
• They do not misidentify sources.
• They don't misrepresent opposing viewpoints.
• They don't destroy or conceal data.
Studies that have undergone peer review support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore crucial that everyone involved in the publication process—authors, readers, researchers, publishers, referees, and editors—adhere to ethical principles. The research and publication ethics standards followed by Belleten are both national and international norms. It adheres to the Press Law, the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works and the Directive on Scientific Research and Publication Ethics of Higher Education Institutions. Belleten has adopted the International Code of Ethical Publishing 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).
Republishing is the act of publishing the same article—or an article that is substantially similar—in more than one publication. Such an article gets rejected by the editor unreviewed. A time-limited embargo on the attempted republication may then be placed on it, the editor may announce it in the journal where the author had previously published (possibly simultaneously with the editor of the journal where the earlier article had been published), or they may combine all of these actions.
Simultaneous Submission of the Same Work to More Than One Journal
Authors are not permitted to simultaneously submit an identical paper to more than one journal. When an editor becomes aware of a potential simultaneous submission, he or she reserves the right to contact the other editor(s) who will be reviewing the manuscript. The editor may also decide to stop accepting submissions from such authors for a predetermined length of time. Other options include returning the work unreviewed, rejecting the paper without taking the reviews into account, or making this decision in consultation with the other editor(s) involved. Additionally, the editor has the right to inform the situation to the authors' employers as well as combining all three of these actions.
Measures for the Prevention of Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the act of representing someone else's thoughts, ideas, methods, data, applications, writings, figures, or works as one's own, in whole or in part, without giving due credit to the original author(s), as required by scientific standards. Articles submitted to the journal are checked for plagiarism using the Intihal (https://intihal.net/) software in order to prevent ethical violations. The editor examines the similarity report to see if the "citation-quotation discrepancy" has been noted by the software.The work will be returned to the author(s) if any unethical or inappropriate situations are found therein.
The following actions are regarded as unethical: plagiarism, duplication, forged authorship/denied authorship, research/data falsification, article slicing and dicing, copyright infringement, and concealing of conflict of interest. The publication of any articles that do not adhere to recognized principles of ethics is discontinued. This comprises articles with potential inconsistencies or improprieties that were discovered after publication.
Creation of material that isn't supported by research, the use of false information when altering or revising a work that has already been submitted or published, reporting or publishing it, or presenting research that hasn't been conducted as though it has.
Falsification of research records and data obtained, falsification of techniques, tools, and materials that were not used in the research, failure to evaluate data that are inconsistent with the research hypothesis, manipulation of data and/or results to fit the pertinent theory or assumptions, and falsification or shaping of research findings to suit the interests of the people and organizations supported.
Protection of Participants' Personal Data
Belleten mandates that every study containing sensitive or private data or materials pertaining to individuals that aren't lawfully accessible to the public be subject to an appropriate ethical assessment.
Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct
The COPE Ethical Toolkit for a Successful Editorial is followed by Belleten. The editors of Belleten will take action to stop the publishing of submissions that contain instances of plagiarism, improper citation style, fabricated or falsified data, or other research misconduct. The editors of Belleten will never intentionally permit such behaviour. The editors will adhere to COPE's procedures for handling allegations in the event that they become aware of any claims of research misconduct involving a piece of writing that was published in their journal.
Notifications for Ethical Violations
If a reader finds a substantial error or inaccuracy in a Belleten article, they can contact the editor by email at firstname.lastname@example.org. They can also contact the editor if they have any concerns about the editorial content (plagiarism, duplicate articles, etc.). Notifications are encouraged, and we will reply as soon as possible with helpful feedback since they present a chance for development.
Correction, Retraction, Expression of Concern
If there are minor errors in a published article that do not influence the findings, interpretations, or conclusions, the editors may think about releasing a correction. If the findings and conclusions are invalidated by significant errors or omissions, the editors should think about retracting the work. Editors should think about issuing a statement of concern if there is a chance that the authors have engaged in unethical behavior in their research or publications, if there is proof that the conclusions are unreliable and the authors' institutions have not conducted an investigation, or if the investigation's potential outcome seems unfair or inconclusive. Guidelines for correction, retraction, or expression of concern are in accordance with COPE and ICJME.
Publication of Studies Based on Surveys and Interviews
In order to guarantee ethical standards in scientific publications, Belleten has adopted the "Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" and "Code of Conduct for Journal Editors" from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The following guidelines should be followed in the articles that are submitted to the journal in this situation:
1) All study in fields requiring ethics committee permission must first acquire approval from the committee, which must then be acknowledged and documented in the article.
2) For studies requiring ethical committee permission, the method section and one of the first/last pages of the publication should provide information about the permission (name of the committee, date, and number no.). In case reports, the article should contain information about the signature on the informed consent form.
Editorial Confidentiality Obligation
The editors of Belleten respect all submitted papers as confidential materials, and they do not share any information about them with third parties without the authors' consent. The following personnel have access to the papers during the review process: members of Editorial Board, editors, and referees. Only when the editor suspects significant research misconduct may information about a manuscript be disclosed to a third party without the authors' consent. If the editor has strong suspicions of serious research misconduct, information about an article may only be disclosed to a third party without the authors' consent.
This process is followed when complaints are made about material, procedures, or guidelines that fall under Belleten or our editorial staff's purview. We strive to respond to complaints as soon, politely, and constructively as possible because they might present an opportunity as well as inspiration for improvement.
The complaint must be in relation to material, procedures, or policies that fall under the purview of Belleten or our editorial staff. Email complaints to email@example.com, where they will be handled confidentially. Complaints will receive a quick response from the editor. The editor handles complaints in accordance with the steps laid out in the COPE flowchart.
If a complaint is not resolved after being evaluated by the appropriate editorial team member, the following procedures are followed:
• If the complainant feels that the journal's initial answer to their complaint is insufficient, they may ask for it to be passed to a more senior employee.
• The editor-in-chief may receive the complaint if the complainant is unsatisfied.
• If possible, a complete response will be given in less than four weeks.
For editors of scientific publications, COPE provides a code of conduct. This will make resolving conflicts with editors, journals, and institutions easier, but it should only be used after the journal's internal complaint procedures have been exhausted.
Serious objections to the editors' and referees' judgments are welcomed by Belleten. An appeal communication can be addressed to the editorial team at firstname.lastname@example.org if it is thought that the paper was rejected because the scientific content was misunderstood. This step does not warrant sending the article's revised version. The corrected version of the article will be sought from the author after the letter of objection has been placed on the Editorial Board's schedule and if it is determined that the objection is valid. As a result, the work is again can be sent out for review by an outside referee.
The letter of objection should contain all pertinent information. For each article, just one objection will be taken into account. This makes it crucial to express the objection in a comprehensible and straightforward manner. We don't consider several objections for the same article due to our experience and convictions, as we have found that lengthy conversations on rejected papers are unsatisfying for both authors and editors.
Conflicts of Interest
A conflict of interest occurs when a secondary objective (such as financial gain or personal competition) may influence professional judgment about a primary interest. The competing interests of the authors should be known in order to manage an article the best way possible, and if the work is published, readers should be made aware of this information.
Any financial or other interest that might get in the way with one's work, significantly influence one's objectivity, or unfairly benefit a person or group is considered a conflict of interest. The role of sponsors in the study, as well as all financial support received during the course of the research and paper production, should be disclosed. It should also be stated if there is no financing source. Consultancies, salaries, and grants are a few examples of potential conflicts of interest that need to be declared. The earliest opportunity should be taken to declare any potential conflicts of interest.
To guarantee unbiased evaluations, Belleten has a specific procedure for dealing with submissions from editors, staff, or editorial board members. Such submission is initially forwarded to other publications. The submitter's status in the journal is suspended if this is not achievable. These submissions go through a double-blind review process.
Editors shouldn't participate in decisions regarding papers written by themselves or members of their family. Such a work should also go through all the standard journal procedures. The editor shall adhere to ICMJE criteria regarding author and referee disclosure of any conflicts of interest.