PUBLICATION CODE OF ETHICS

Selcuk University Journal of Faculty of Letters l (SEFAD) (E-ISSN 2458-908X) is a refereed academic
journal that publishes only original scientific articles that meet the standards for a given
discipline. SEFAD's ethical statement has followed the principles of COPE Code of Conduct and
Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. For
more detailed information, please refer to the resources mentioned in the following link:
https://publicationethics.org/
In this document, the ethical responsibilities that SEFAD’s publisher, editor-in chief, field editors,
reviewers and authors should adhere to are specified. All the stakeholders are expected to
comply with these ethical principles.
1. ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PUBLISHER
SEFAD is a scientific and academic journal published by Selcuk University Faculty of Letters.
The publisher/official owner of the journal on behalf of the faculty is obliged to fulfill the
following ethical responsibilities:
Editorial Independence
 The Publisher ensures that SEFAD’s editor and the field editors act independently in their
editorial decisions throughout the processes from submission to publication.
 The publisher or any external agent cannot make any request against the editorial
independence or interfere in the publishing process.
Intellectual Property and Copyright
 The publisher guarantees for protection of the intellectual property and copyright of each
article published in SEFAD. Besides, the publisher is obliged to provide a record of every
published article.
 The publisher is obliged to provide information on the material for which copyright
should be provided in the Article Information field specifically for each article. If there is
any material subject to copyright in the article, it should be registered in the system by
obtaining a petition from the author.
Access to Journal Content
 The Publisher is committed to providing a permanent and free access to all articles
published in SEFAD in accordance with the Open Access principle.
 The publisher cannot request any pecuniary and non-pecuniary provisions from the
authors throughout the publication process.
Archiving of Publications
 The publisher takes necessary measures to archive and protect the online content.
Avoiding Ethical Pitfalls
 The publisher, together with the editors, is obliged to take the necessary measures in case
of any scientific abuse and plagiarism.
 If an ethical pitfall is noticed, it should be overcome immediately; if not possible, solutions
like publishing a correction or withdrawing the related article can be provided.
2. ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS
 The editors of SEFAD are obliged to fulfill the following ethical responsibilities:
Decision for Publication
 It is the editors’ responsibility to decide which articles will be published in the Journal.

 The submitted articles are subjected to pre-evaluation by the assistant editor and editor-in-
chief in terms of plagiarism, compliance with the scope and publication principles of the journal, taking into account academic qualities such as being research-based, originality,

contributing to the field, examining new and different developments.
 The referee process of the articles which meet the criteria of preliminary evaluation is
initiated by the field editors. According to the reviews of referees and academic
qualification of articles, the field editors give a decision on whether the manuscript is
accepted or not.
Impartiality
 During the evaluation process of the articles sent to SEFAD, the characteristics of the
referee and author (s) such as gender, ethnic origin, religious belief, political opinion, and
the institution they work in are not taken into consideration.
Confidentiality
 No specific information as to the articles sent to SEFAD is shared with anyone else other
than the author (s), referees, editors, editorial board and publisher.
 Research data should be protected.
 Even after the article is published or rejected, SEFAD acts in accordance with the principle
of confidentiality.
Conflict of Interest
 Editors cannot use the information enclosed in a study sent to SEFAD in their own
research without the written permission of the author(s). Likewise, they cannot use the
information or views collected from the referee evaluation for their own benefit.
 If a conflict of interest arises between the editor and the author, the editor may ask one of
the other editors or editorial board to carry out the pre-evaluation and the management of
the refereeing process. In such a case, information should be provided in the Article
Information field.
 Articles should not be sent to referees who may have a self-interest in the subject of the
study.
Urgency
 Having completed preliminary evaluation, the articles are sent to the referees without
delay.
 The decisions of the referees are forwarded to the authors without delay so that the
authors make the required corrections.
 In the editorial process, action is taken in accordance with the time regulations previously
determined by the SEFAD.
Controlling the Evaluation Process
 The referees are chosen among the most competent names in the related field.
 For the process of referee assignment , it should be considered if there is a conflict of
interest between the author and the referees. The authors and referees cannot be at the
same institution or the department.
 The principle of blind-review must be followed. The information of the referees must be
kept confidential. In addition, it should not be ignored that any personal information
regarding the author (s) cannot be sent to the referees.
 Referees should not be allowed to make offensive and non-academic comments.
 The referee list should be constantly updated and efforts should be made to expand it.
 When sending a rejection notification to the author (s), the language should not be
offensive and disdainful.

Ensuring Publication Integrity
 When ethical considerations regarding a published article arise , even if it has been a long
time since the date of publication, the required examination must be carried out. The
authors are contacted and informed about the complaints and allegations.
 If possible, the author of the article is contacted to show the necessary attention to
complaints and claims. If a violation has been determined as a result of theinvestigation, a
correction notice is issued stating that there is an error, inconsistency or misleading
information in the publication.
3. ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE REFEREE
Contribution to Publishing Decisions
 The referee evaluation is at the center of the academic publishing process. Referee
decisions assist editors in making editorial decisions.
 Referees assist the author (s) in improving the article through editorial communication.
 By reason of the double-blind peer-reviewed evaluation system, the referees cannot
directly contact the authors. Evaluation forms and reports are sent to the authors through
editors by using the online system of the journal.
Urgency
 A referree to whom a request has been sent for an article evaluation must inform the editor
as soon as possible as to whether he/she will evaluate the article.
 If the referee is not sufficiently expert on the subject, or if the article is out of his/her area
of expertise or if he/she cannot finish the evaluation due to the shortage of time, he/she
should inform the editor by giving a reason and may request to withdraw from being
referee.
 Referees should complete their evaluations within the period determined by the Journal,
and should not delay the process.
Confidentiality
 All information regarding the articles sent to the referees for evaluation should be kept
confidential by the referees.
 As long as there is no editorial authorization, the article content should not be shown and
discussed with others.
 After finishing the evaluation process, the referees must destroy the first versions of the
manuscript. They can only use the final, i.e. published versions of the articles.
 The principle of confidentiality includes referees who refuse to evaluate since they have
already acquired some information about the manuscript such as title and summary.
Objectivity
 Referees must make their evaluations objectively. Article criticisms should be made in an
unbiased and fair way.
 Criticism should be directed towards the article; personal criticism of the author is not
allowed.
 Referees should express their views clearly by using supporting evidence.
 When refusing the article, the referees should be principled and truthful; they also should
report their reasons clearly. Justified explanation is an ethical responsibility. An
appropriate language should be used in the report for the rejection of the article.
 Referees should make their evaluations by using a constructive and kind language.
Citing Sources
 If the referees find out that the required citation rules are not followed in the article, , they
are obliged to inform the author

 If the referees notice that there is a similarity or overlap between the article they evaluated

and a previously published work, they should inform the editor.
Conflict of Interest
 Referees should not agree to evaluate if they have any conflict of interest with the author
(s) and they should inform the editor about the case.
 Referees cannot use all or some part of the manuscript sent to them for their own research
without written permission of the author. Any information, data and ideas obtained
during the evaluation process should be kept confidential and should not be used for
personal interests. This rule also applies to referees who refuse to evaluate the article sent
to them.
 The referees cannot discredit the work that does not refer to their own work and cannot
force the author (s) to refer to them if they have their own work in the related area of the
manuscript.
4. ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE AUTHORS
Reporting
 Author (s) should accurately and clearly state how their work is carried out, and
objectively present its importance and results.
 The article should be detailed in order to allow other researchers to carry out similar
studies, and the sources that can be used should be specified.
 Unrealistic and intentionally false statements are not compatible with the ethical code of
SEFAD and cannot be allowed.
Originality
 The author (s) must ensure that their articles are completely original and that if they used
works of others, they must ensure citing and referencing them completely and accurately.
 Plagiarism is an act against publication ethics and is unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention
 The author (s) should be able to make the raw data of their research accessible to everyone
in the case of a request for editorial review or peer review. Authors should be able to retain
the data for a reasonable period of time even after the publication.
Multiple Publishing
 The author (s) cannot submit their article for publication to more than one journal at the
same time
 An article that was previously published in a journal or sent to the evaluation process for
publication cannot be resent to another journal for evaluation.
 It may be possible to republish articles previously published in another journal if they
meet certain conditions. In this case, the editor should explain that the work was
previously published in another journal and refer to it clearly.
Citing Sources
 Author (s) should cite the sources that contribute to an understanding of the research
findings.
 The information obtained as a result of personal interviews should not be used without the
permission of the source person.
 All sources used in the study should be cited and referred.
 Previous publications that reveal similar or different results should be indicated.
 It is an ethical responsibility to indicate the supporters of the research and thank them for
their contribution.

Authorship Definition
 The persons listed as article authors should be limited to those who make significant
contributions by personally taking part in all processes of the preparation of the article. If
there are people who contributed only in certain stages of the work, they should be
specified as “contributors” and thanked.
 If the article has more than one author, one of them should be specified as the “responsible
author” and this author should be in contact with the editor and carry out the
correspondence. Corresponding author should ensure that all the other authors are
involved in every step of the article from the evaluation process to its publication.
Conflict of Interest
 If there are any pecuniary and non-pecuniary conflicts of interest that may affect the
results and interpretations of the study, the author(s) should indicate them during the
submission of the article.
Ethics Committee Permission
 Author (s) must certify that they have the right to use the data and the necessary
permissions for research and analysis.
 Ethics committee approval should be obtained separately for clinical and experimental
studies on humans and animals. This approval must be indicated and documented in the
article with its date and code.
Correction of Errors in the Published Article
 The author (s) are obliged to notify the editor immediately when they notice an important
mistake in their published article and to cooperate with the editor in the correction or
withdrawal procedures.
 If the editor determines or finds out from a source other than the author that an article
contains a serious error, the authors are obliged to prove to the editor of the journalthe
correctness of the relevant part of their work, make corrections or withdraw the article.