1. Research Ethics

ATED (Anadolu Turkish Journal of Education) requires full compliance with international research ethics standards throughout the research process. Our journal adopts the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, the American Psychological Association (APA) Ethical Principles, and the Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Regulation of TÜBİTAK, as well as other relevant national and international regulations.

1.1. Research Involving Human Participants

For all studies involving human participants, authors are required to:

• Obtain approval from a competent ethics committee (institutional review board or equivalent),
• Obtain informed consent from all participants,
• Ensure the confidentiality and anonymity of participant identities,
• Conduct the research in compliance with the current version of the WMA Declaration of Helsinki (2024 updates).

The ethics committee approval document must be uploaded to the system during manuscript submission. The ethics committee information (committee name, decision number, and date) must be clearly stated both in the Method section and on the title page.

1.2. Research Involving Animal Subjects

Studies conducted with animal subjects must comply with international guidelines, including the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Academies Press, 2011) and EU Directive 2010/63/EU. Authors are obliged to provide the relevant veterinary/ethics committee approvals.

1.3. Ethics Committee Exemption

Some studies may be exempt from ethics committee approval. In such cases, authors are expected to explain the applicable exemption rationale in the Method section. For research conducted from 2020 onwards, an ethics committee document is mandatory.

2. Publication Ethics

ATED's publication ethics policies are shaped by the guidelines prepared by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (https://publicationethics.org). The publication ethics principles set out below are binding for all stakeholders of our journal.

2.1. Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

Authors should ensure the accuracy and truthfulness of the data used in their work; maintain records of research processes and procedures in an organized manner; provide relevant raw data and/or information when deemed necessary by publication and scientific committees.

• Authors should ensure that their articles have not been published elsewhere or are not under consideration for publication in another peer-reviewed journal.
• Individuals who have not made an intellectual contribution to the study should not be listed as authors.
• If the study involves animal and/or human subjects, authors should comply with relevant national and international rules and regulations (e.g., the Declaration of Helsinki, the Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals by PHS, the EU Directive on the Use of Animals); provide evidence that necessary permissions and approvals have been obtained; respect the privacy of subjects/participants.
• Articles submitted for publication should be shared with the editor and publisher if there is any conflict of interest or relationship. If necessary, an addendum or erratum should be reported or the article should be retracted.
• During the peer review process, authors may be requested by the Editorial Board to provide the raw data they used in their studies. Therefore, it is expected that they share the relevant data with the Editorial Board and retain all relevant data for a minimum of five years.
• Authors are obligated to inform the editor or publisher if they discover any errors in their work during early publication or the publication process and collaborate with the editors during the correction or retraction process.

2.2. Author Contribution Statement

ATED requires all authors to submit an author contribution statement in accordance with the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) and CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) standards. The contribution of each author to the manuscript (conceptualization, data collection, analysis, writing, etc.) must be stated in detail.

2.3. Ethical Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

The editors and section editors of ATED should have the following ethical responsibilities based on the "COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" and "COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors," published by the Committee on Publication Ethics, which can be accessed from the following link: https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf)

• Adopting balanced and objective behavior while fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of an editor; treating authors fairly without discrimination based on gender, religious beliefs, political views, ethnic origin, or nationality.
• Evaluating the articles submitted to ATED based on the "article submission guidelines," the significance and originality of the study, and if the decision is made to reject a manuscript based on editorial evaluation, providing authors with clear and objective reasons for the decision. If it is determined that an article requires extensive revision due to various typesetting, punctuation, spelling, and formatting errors or issues with the referencing system, informing the authors and allocating the necessary time for corrections.
• Taking necessary measures and evaluating the requests of both parties in cases of conflicts of interest.
• Evaluating the submitted works to ATED based on their content without granting any privileges.
• Ensuring that all manuscripts undergo a blind peer review process and that authors have no knowledge of the reviewers, and reviewers have no information about the authors.
• Treating sponsored research or studies on special topics in the same manner as all other articles.
• Supporting the freedom of expression for authors.
• Carefully informing authors about the processes and status of their manuscripts without violating the rules and regulations of blind peer review.
• Continuously updating the article template that presents and explains what is expected from authors.
• Ensuring that all published articles include submission and acceptance dates.
• Striving to contribute to the improvement and development of the journal's quality.
• Taking necessary actions in accordance with ATED's relevant policies and procedures in case of a complaint regarding a violation of ethical principles. Providing authors with the necessary opportunities to respond to the complaints raised against their manuscripts or defend themselves, and applying appropriate and objective sanctions.
• Inviting the authors of a manuscript to declare that they have no conflict of interest before starting the review process.
• Renewing and expanding the pool of reviewers considering their areas of expertise or specialization.
• Excluding reviewers who fail to fulfill their duties in a timely manner or provide rude and low-quality feedback and comments.
• Rejecting a manuscript that is not aligned with the objectives and scope of the journal.
• Identifying and appointing new members who can contribute to the development of the Editorial Board.
• Informing the new members of the Editorial Board about ATED's manuscript submission guidelines, explaining what is expected from them as Editorial Board members, and providing information about their responsibilities.
• Reviewing and responding to criticism or feedback related to the journal when necessary.

2.4. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

The evaluation of all manuscripts through the process of "Double-Blind Peer Review" directly impacts the quality of publication. This process ensures confidentiality through unbiased and independent assessment. The review process at ATED is conducted according to the principle of double-blind review. Reviewers do not directly know or communicate with the authors, and authors have no knowledge of the reviewers. Reviews and comments are conveyed through the journal management system. In this process, the opinions of reviewers regarding evaluation forms and full texts are assigned to the author(s) by the editor. Therefore, reviewers conducting reviews for ATED should have the following ethical responsibilities:

Reviewers should:

• Agree to review only the works in their respective areas of expertise and commit to reviewing the assigned manuscript fairly, impartially, and in a timely manner to assist the editor in the decision-making process.
• Fill out the relevant 'Reviewer Evaluation Form' and ensure that no information about their (reviewer) identity is reflected in the form. State their decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript along with the rationale.
• Review the manuscript objectively and solely based on its content, ensuring that nationality, gender, religious and political beliefs, and economic concerns do not influence the review.
• Thoroughly and confidentially review the draft with objectivity and provide relevant feedback to improve its quality.
• Review the manuscript in a constructive and courteous manner, avoiding personal comments that involve hostility, defamation, or insults. Reviewers may be asked to reconsider their evaluations and feedback if it is determined that their comments lack scientific merit.
• Review a manuscript solely based on its content.
• Preserve the confidentiality of information provided by the editor or author(s) and destroy the manuscript after the review process.
• Notify the journal editor and decline the review of a manuscript if they encounter any issues that may compromise the double-blind peer review process.
• Dispose of the reviewed manuscripts in accordance with the principle of confidentiality after the review process. Reviewers may only use the final version of the reviewed manuscripts after they are published.
• Be aware of potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative, or those related to relationships with authors) and alert the editor to withdraw from reviewing the respective manuscript.

2.5. Ethical Responsibilities of the Publisher

The publisher bears full responsibility for taking measures against scientific misconduct, fraud, and plagiarism.

The publisher protects the intellectual property rights of all manuscripts published in ATED and is responsible for maintaining a record of every published item.

The publisher acknowledges that the editor and editorial board are authorized to make all decisions regarding the peer review, editorial, and publication processes.

3. Publication Policy

Publication policies are developed in accordance with the ethical principles established by the following reputable organizations: Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). These policies ensure that the journal maintains its commitment to transparency, ethical principles, and high-quality publishing standards.

3.1. Transparency

Transparency is the cornerstone of correspondence between authors, the Editor, and Section Editors in ATED. However, the principle of confidentiality regarding the identity of authors must be preserved in correspondence between the Editor or Section Editors and reviewers. In addition, the identities of reviewers are not included in reports sent to authors.

If a reviewer believes that the manuscript assigned to them contains any problem related to research ethics or the data used in the study, or that there is a conflict of interest between themselves and the author(s), they must share these matters with the Editor before beginning the review process.

3.2. Peer Review Process

ATED employs a double-blind peer review system. Within this system:

• Authors have no information about who the reviewers are.
• Reviewers have no information about the author(s) of the manuscript they are reviewing.
• Each manuscript is submitted for evaluation by at least two (2) independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.
• In the event that the two reviewers' opinions conflict with each other (one recommending acceptance and the other rejection), the manuscript is evaluated by consulting a third reviewer.
• In cases where the two reviewers' opinions are close but show significant differences, the Editor may, if necessary, exercise the Editor's Decision authority and communicate the decision to the authors with justification.
• The peer review process is typically completed within 20 days; this period may vary depending on the manuscript and reviewer availability.
• For manuscripts requiring revision, authors are expected to complete their corrections within the specified timeframe. Manuscripts requiring major revision may be re-evaluated by the same reviewers.

The Editor may request reviewers to read each other's reports and then comment on the report they have read, in order to ensure an integrated and consistent peer review process and to contribute to the academic development of the author. In such cases, the names and identities of the reviewers must be kept confidential.

Peer Review Process

Technical check (by the Editorial Office):

• Review of format requirements
• Verification that all required information is complete
• Control of files, forms, documents, and declarations

Preliminary review by the Editor-in-Chief:

The manuscript is evaluated for compliance with the following criteria:

• Suitability to the journal's aim, focus, and scope
• Publication quality
• Language quality
• Ethical standards
• Conflict of interest

The Editor-in-Chief either rejects the manuscript or forwards it to the editors.

Review by Editors:

• Objective errors
• Language errors (grammar, spelling, and relevant scientific literature)
• Research quality
• Compliance of the research with ethical standards

Editors may reject the manuscript or send it for peer review.

Peer review process:

• Conflict of interest declaration (If a conflict of interest exists, the editorial office assesses the situation and assigns a reviewer if deemed appropriate. The Editorial Board follows COPE's conflict of interest guidelines.)
• Detailed review of the manuscript
• Quality assessment (research question, hypothesis, theoretical framework, alignment with scientific literature, methodology, scientific standards, language and presentation, strengths and weaknesses)
• Providing feedback (suggestions for improving the study or the presentation of results)
• Selecting one of five options:

1. Accept
2. Minor Revision
3. Major Revision
4. Reject and Resubmit
5. Reject

Preparing the reviewer report

• Adding comments on the full text
• Adding literature citations to support comments (where appropriate)

• Submitting comments that are private to the editors and not shared with the authors

Questions reviewers may address during the evaluation process:

Title

• Does it accurately reflect the study?
• Is the length appropriate?
• Does it contain abbreviations that hinder comprehension?
• Does it accurately reflect the study's key variables/phenomenon?
• Is the title original and eye-catching?

Abstract

• Does the abstract include the study's aim, method, key findings, and conclusions?
• Does it reasonably summarize the study's content?
• Do the keywords reflect the study's content?

Introduction

• Is the relevant literature addressed sufficiently and currently?
• Is the study's contribution to the field clearly stated?
• Is background information provided adequately?
• Does it explain the study's aim?
• Is the study's rationale clearly stated?

Method

• Is the research model/design clearly and explicitly stated?
• Is the research model/design consistent with the study's aim?
• Are the data collection methods adequately explained and appropriate?
• Is the validity and reliability information of the data collection tools sufficient?
• Is the data analysis process clearly and understandably explained?
• Is the method replicable?
• Is there a sufficient number of participants for inferring the research results, and was this number calculated correctly?
• Are appropriate controls used?
• Are the statistical analyses appropriate and sufficient?
• Was ethics committee approval obtained if necessary?

Results

• Are the results presented appropriately according to the research questions?
• Are the data presented sufficiently?
• Are the results reported clearly and understandably?
• Are any data presented that were not specified in the method section?
• Do the numbers in the tables and text agree with each other?
• Is there unnecessary repetition between the text and tables/figures?
• Are the tables and figures sufficient and necessary?
• Are the tables/figures titled correctly?

Discussion

• Are the results discussed sufficiently in light of the relevant literature?
• Are the theoretical and practical implications of the findings adequately explained?
• Are the findings related to the existing literature consistently and meaningfully?
• Is unnecessary speculation made?
• Are the study's limitations stated?
• Are conclusions and recommendations presented?

General Evaluation

• Does the study offer an original contribution?
• Is the topic suitable for the journal's scope?
• Is the topic current and important?
• Does it comply with the principles of scientific research and publication ethics?
• Is the language of the article at an acceptable level?
• Are the references current?

Evaluation of the Revised Manuscript

• Have the revisions improved the scientific quality of the article?
• Have the authors responded to the suggestions?
• Are the revisions made acceptable?
• Have the authors explained why they did not implement a suggestion?

Final Decision for Publication

Based on peer reviews and section editor opinions, articles may result in one of the following decisions:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject and Resubmit
• Reject

After the peer reviews, section editors convey their recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief. The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief and communicated to the authors. Multiple rounds of evaluation and revision may take place when necessary. Accepted articles are forwarded to the production and preparation process for publication.

3.3. Author Rights in ATED

3.3.1. Excluding Certain Reviewers from the Review Process

Authors have the right to request from the Editor that their manuscripts not be assigned to certain reviewers due to a conflict of interest or other ethical issues. The Editor will not send any manuscript to reviewers who:

• Have previously co-authored publications with the author(s),
• Have helped the author(s) read the drafts of the given manuscript,
• Have had prior disputes with the author(s),
• Could financially benefit from the publication of the given manuscript,
• Are employed at the same institution (departments) as the author(s).

3.3.2. Withdrawal of Article

Authors have the right to withdraw their articles before publication. To do so, they must complete and sign the 'Article Withdrawal Form' and submit it to ATED for approval. Only articles approved by the Editorial Board may be submitted to other journals for publication.

3.3.3. Appeal Against Reviewer Reports or Editorial Board Decisions

Authors always have the right to appeal against reviewer reports or editorial board decisions. If they wish, they must justify their appeals and attach the necessary documents or evidence to their applications. If the Editor deems appropriate, a new round of review may be initiated.

3.3.4. Typographical Errors

Authors have the right to request the correction of typographical errors or other problematic points originating from them within five days.

3.4. Plagiarism Policy

Intentional or unintentional plagiarism constitutes a violation of research ethics. Publishing a work with content similar to or identical to other works without citing the source is not only ethically abusive but also legally prohibited.

Authors are required to upload plagiarism reports to the journal system when submitting their manuscripts to ATED. Manuscripts with more than 20% similarity to other works will be returned to their authors without initiating the peer review process.

ATED uses iThenticate/Turnitin for plagiarism detection. An additional similarity check is also carried out through our journal system after article acceptance.

3.5. Conflict of Interest

Matters in which individuals or groups benefit financially or personally can also lead to a conflict of interest. The reliability of scientific research and published articles depends in part on the objective handling of conflicts of interest in the processes of planning, implementation, writing, evaluation, revision, and publication.

ATED's editorial board is committed to considering all these possibilities and striving to make the review process as objective as possible.

3.6. Transfer of Copyright

Manuscripts submitted to ATED for publication must not have been published elsewhere or submitted for publication elsewhere. Authors are expected to transfer copyright to ATED when submitting their work. This transfer agreement takes effect after the article is accepted for publication.

Authors may continue to have the right to publish the content of the article on their personal websites or in their institutions' open access archives; may make copies of the article for personal use; and may use its content in part or in full in other works by appropriately citing it.

3.7. Misconduct in Scientific Research and Publication

The following behaviors are considered scientific misconduct:

• Plagiarism: Using others' original ideas, methods, data, or products without attribution.
• Fraud: Using data that does not actually exist or has been distorted.
• Falsification: Corrupting research records or data.
• Duplication: Using the same research data in more than one study.
• Slicing: Dividing research results into pieces in a way that disrupts integrity and publishing them as separate research articles.
• Undeserved authorship: Listing persons who did not actively contribute to the production of the article as authors, or not mentioning those who actually contributed.

3.8. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

ATED permits the limited use of artificial intelligence tools solely for supportive functions (such as language editing and visualization) in order to preserve academic integrity and transparency; AI tools are not accepted as authors, and authors are required to explicitly declare any such use. For the full policy, see Statement on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.