The Academic Literature Journal of Social Sciences Research (AKALID) endorses the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and monitors cases of publication misconduct such as fabrication, unethical statements, plagiarism, and inappropriate images.

▪ Submissions to the journal are evaluated for their purpose, scope, methodology, and writing principles through an editorial process, and then scientifically reviewed using a double-blind peer review method by the Editorial Board. Besides peer-reviewed articles, the journal publishes book reviews and introductions.

▪ Authors are not paid for articles published in the journal.

▪ Reported research must comply with ethical standards, and all citations within the text must be clearly indicated. The maximum acceptable similarity rate is 20%.

▪ The opinions expressed in published articles are not those of the journal; responsibility lies with the authors of each article.

▪ Detailed information about AKALID’s aims and scope, writing rules, publication policies, manuscript submission and evaluation processes, and ethical principles is available on the journal’s website.

The following ethical responsibilities have been prepared in accordance with the ethical rules and responsibilities indicated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Journal editors, reviewers, and authors are expected to act in compliance with the ethical rules below.

1. Ethical Responsibilities for Reviewers

The reviewer board is reviewed at least once a year and regularly updated. Articles submitted for publication are processed through an editorial procedure regarding purpose, scope, methodology, and writing principles. Articles deemed suitable for publication are sent to two different reviewers. In this context, reviewers of the journal are expected to fulfill the following ethical responsibilities:

▪ Reviews must be impartial.
Reviewers must have expertise in the subject they review. If they lack sufficient knowledge, they should decline the review invitation.

▪ Reviewers must not have conflicts of interest with the research or authors.
In accordance with confidentiality principles, reviewers must destroy the manuscripts they evaluate after the review process.

▪ Evaluation should be objective and based solely on the content of the work. Nationality, gender, religious beliefs, political views, and commercial concerns must not influence the review.

▪ As part of their educational responsibility, reviewers should guide authors, avoiding hurtful or demeaning comments and remarks on the authors’ inadequacies.

▪ Reviews must be completed on time and in accordance with the ethical responsibilities described above.

2. Ethical Responsibilities for Authors

▪ Manuscripts submitted for publication must comply with scientific publishing ethics (plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, redundant publication, slicing, undeserved authorship, failure to acknowledge supporting institutions, not following ethical rules in animal studies, etc.).

▪ Authors must conduct their research in accordance with ethical rules and relevant legislation. Manuscripts should be original and appropriate for the stated research field.

▪ If research results require an ethics committee approval, authors must provide the committee’s decision information (committee name, date, number, etc.).

▪ Direct quotations from other works must be properly cited.

▪ Reference lists must be complete, and all cited sources should be indicated.

2.1. Accuracy and Reliability
▪ Authors should use appropriate data analysis methods when necessary and seek expert advice if needed.

▪ In multi-author studies, all authors share responsibility for the content. Authors should verify that methods and findings are accurately reported at every stage of publication.

2.2. Integrity
▪ Submitted manuscripts must not have been published elsewhere or be under consideration for publication elsewhere.

▪ Authors should describe their research methods and present findings clearly and accurately.

2.3. Originality
▪ Authors must confirm that the work is original and has not been published in any language elsewhere.

▪ If research findings have been previously published or submitted elsewhere, the editor must be informed during submission. Authors should provide copies of related publications or submissions to other journals.

▪ Multiple publications from a single research project must be clearly indicated, with reference to the primary publication.

2.4. Transparency
▪ Authors may be asked to provide raw data during the review process and must be ready to present the requested data and information to the editorial and review board.

▪ Authors must have the rights to use the data and necessary approvals or permissions for research/analysis or participants.

▪ Authors must describe their methods clearly to allow verification of findings by others.

2.5. Responsibility
▪ Authors may not submit the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously. Each submission must be made after completion of the previous one.

▪ If authors discover an error or mistake in published, early view, or under-review work, they must notify the editor and cooperate in correction or withdrawal processes.

2.6. Multi-Author Works
▪ All authors must be listed, and the copyright transfer form must reflect this.

▪ During the review process, a corresponding author should be selected to communicate with the editor.

▪ Author responsibilities cannot be altered during the review (adding/removing authors, changing author order).

▪ Any changes or revisions must be communicated to all authors by the corresponding author.

▪ All authors share responsibility for the integrity of research and reporting. If responsibility is limited to specific aspects, this must be indicated in the publication.

2.7. Peer Review and Copyright Transfer Form
▪ Detailed information is available under the “Peer Review and Evaluation Process” section of the Writing Rules page. Authors agree to these rules upon submission.

▪ Authors must cooperate and respond accurately and timely to reviewer and editor requests.

▪ Authors wishing to withdraw a manuscript during the review process must inform the editor.

2.8. Reporting Research Involving Humans or Animals
▪ Appropriate approvals, licenses, or registrations must be obtained before research begins, and details should be provided in the report (e.g., Institutional Review Board, Ethics Committee approval, national licenses for animal use).

▪ Upon request, authors must provide proof that research was ethically conducted.

▪ Personal data collected during research must not be published or shared without the individual’s consent.

▪ All meaningful research results must be reported.

3. Ethical Responsibilities for Editors

3.1. Responsibility for Journal Content
Editors are responsible for all published articles, ensuring quality and integrity. Editors must:

▪ Make academic decisions and take full responsibility.
▪ Ensure fair and unbiased evaluation, respecting freedom of thought.
▪ Manage processes in accordance with intellectual property rights and ethical standards.
▪ Address the information needs of readers and authors and continuously improve the journal.
▪ Maintain confidentiality of authors and reviewers and manage the review process accordingly.
▪ Consider feedback from authors, reviewers, and readers in improving processes.
▪ Keep up with research on peer review and publishing, updating processes as needed.

3.2. Relationship with Readers
▪ Ensure originality and scientific contribution of published work.
▪ Respond constructively to feedback from stakeholders.

3.3. Relationship with Authors
▪ Ensure all works are reviewed by qualified reviewers.
▪ Provide detailed guidance on the process on the journal website.
▪ Maintain ongoing communication with authors to prevent process issues.

3.4. Relationship with Reviewers
▪ Monitor conflicts of interest between authors and reviewers.
▪ Maintain reviewer anonymity in double-blind peer review.
▪ Encourage objective, scientific, and unbiased reviews.
▪ Maintain a multidisciplinary reviewer pool and update it regularly.
▪ Prevent or censor unscientific or disrespectful reviews.

3.5. Peer Review and Evaluation Process
▪ Editors must implement policies in the “Peer Review and Evaluation Process” section.
▪ Editors ensure fair, unbiased, and timely evaluations.
▪ Editors consider reviewer arguments, not just the number of accept/reject votes.

Review outcomes:
▪ Accept for publication.
▪ Accept with major revisions.
▪ Request revision and re-review.
▪ Reject.

3.6. Editorial Board Members
▪ Carefully select qualified members contributing to the journal’s development.
▪ Regularly review board members and consult them for suggestions and planning.

3.7. Protection of Personal Data
▪ Reject manuscripts if participants’ consent is not obtained.
▪ Protect personal data of authors, reviewers, and readers.

3.8. Ethics Committees, Human and Animal Rights
▪ Ensure protection of human and animal rights; reject works lacking necessary approvals.

3.9. Protection of Intellectual Property Rights
▪ Protect all intellectual property rights and defend journal and authors in case of violations.

3.10. Constructiveness and Openness to Discussion
▪ Consider critiques of published works and respond constructively.

3.11. Complaints
▪ Examine complaints from authors, reviewers, or readers and provide explanatory responses.

4. Ethical Responsibilities of the Publisher
▪ Ensure the ownership and copyright of each published article and maintain records.

5. Licensing and Copyright
▪ The journal is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.
▪ Users may distribute, copy, adapt, or create derivative works with proper attribution.

6. Plagiarism Control
▪ Research must comply with ethical rules, and all citations must be indicated. Manuscripts are evaluated via iThenticate before publication.
▪ Maximum similarity rate: 20%.

If you encounter unethical practices, significant errors, or content violating ethical responsibilities, please report via email to akalidergi@gmail.com.