Publication Ethics

Scientific Research Communications (SRC) adheres to the ethical publishing standards established by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE). In scholarly publications, it is crucial to provide a comprehensive and enduring account of research endeavors. Given that publications serve as the foundation for further investigations and the practical application of findings, they possess the potential to impact not only the research community but also society as a whole, albeit indirectly. Hence, researchers bear the responsibility of ensuring that their publications exhibit honesty, clarity, accuracy, completeness, and balance while avoiding any misleading, selective, or ambiguous reporting. Furthermore, journal editors have a duty to uphold the integrity of the research literature, as outlined in the accompanying guidelines.

In alignment with these principles, SRC is fully committed to fostering openness, transparency, and the ability to reproduce research findings within the articles we publish.    

 

Editorial Confidentiality Obligation
The editors of Scientific Research Communications treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents, meaning they will not disclose any information about a manuscript to anyone without the authors' permission. During the article review process, only the following individuals may access the manuscripts: Editors, Reviewers, and Editorial Board Members. The only situation in which details of a manuscript may be shared with a third party without the authors' consent is if the editor suspects serious research misconduct.

 

Scientific Misconduct Allegations - Suspicions
Scientific misconduct can have various definitions. At Scientific Research Communications, we follow the guidance established by major publication ethics organizations and address these issues on a case-by-case basis. If an editor suspects ethical misconduct or if a misconduct allegation arises, they are obligated to take action. This responsibility applies to both published and unpublished manuscripts. The editor should not simply reject manuscripts raising concerns about potential misconduct; they must pursue ethically alleged cases. When appropriate, the editor should follow COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) flowcharts. Editors should first request a response from individuals suspected of misconduct. If the response is unsatisfactory, they should ask the relevant employer or institution to conduct an investigation. The editor must make every reasonable effort to ensure a proper inquiry into the alleged misconduct; if this is not possible, the editor should make all reasonable efforts to resolve the issue. This is a demanding but essential duty.

Scientific Research Communications adheres to COPE's "Ethical Toolkit for a Successful Editorial." The editors of Scientific Research Communications will take precautions to prevent the publication of articles where plagiarism, citation manipulation, data falsification, data fabrication, or other forms of research misconduct have occurred. Under no circumstances will Scientific Research Communications or its editors knowingly permit such misconduct. If the editors of Scientific Research Communications become aware of any allegations of research misconduct concerning a published article, they will follow COPE’s guidelines in handling the claims.

Reviewers must report to the Editor if they suspect any research or publication misconduct. The Editor is responsible for taking the necessary actions, following COPE's recommendations.

 

Complaint Procedure
This procedure applies to complaints concerning the content, procedures, or policies under the responsibility of Scientific Research Communications or our editorial team. Complaints provide an opportunity and encouragement for improvement, and we aim to respond promptly, courteously, and constructively. Complaints should be related to the content, procedures, or policies within the responsibility of Scientific Research Communications or our editorial team. Complaints should be sent directly via email to admin@scientificrc.org and will be handled confidentially. The editor will respond to complaints promptly, following the procedure outlined in the COPE flowchart. Complaints will be reviewed by the relevant member of the editorial team, and if unresolved, the following steps will be followed:

  • If the initial response is deemed insufficient, the complainant may request that their complaint be referred to a more senior member of the journal.
  • If still unsatisfied, the complaint may be escalated to the Editor-in-Chief.

Whenever possible, a complete response will be provided within two weeks.

COPE publishes a code of practice for editors of scientific journals. These editors will facilitate the resolution of disputes with journals and publishers, but only after the journal's own complaint procedures have been exhausted.

 

Appeal Process
We welcome serious appeals regarding evaluations made by editors and reviewers. If you believe that your article was rejected due to a misunderstanding of its scientific content, please send an appeal message to our editorial team at admin@scientificrc.org. Do not attempt to submit a revised version of your article at this stage. If, after reading your appeal letter, we determine your appeal is justified, we may invite you to submit a revised version of your article, which will then undergo the external peer review process once more.

Please include as much detail as possible in your appeal letter. Finally, we can only consider one appeal per article, so please invest the time and effort to clearly and thoroughly present your case in the letter—you have one chance, so make it count. We have found that prolonged negotiation over rejected articles is often unsatisfactory for both authors and editors; therefore, 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 influenced by a secondary interest, such as financial gain or personal rivalry. We believe it is essential to know any competing interests of authors to make the best decision on how to handle a manuscript. If we publish the article, readers should also be informed of these interests.

Conflicts of interest include any financial or other interests that may lead to a conflict in one’s work, significantly compromising objectivity or providing an unfair advantage to any individual or organization. All sources of financial support and the role of sponsors in the research and manuscript preparation should be disclosed. If there is no source of funding, this should be indicated. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that require disclosure include consultancies, receipt of salaries, and grants. Potential conflicts should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

Scientific Research Communications has an established procedure to manage submissions from editors, staff, or editorial board members to ensure impartial review. Such submissions are typically redirected to other journals. If this is not possible, the submitter's role at the journal is suspended. These submissions are reviewed under a double-blind process.

 

Publication Ethics Principles
Publication ethics can be defined as a self-regulatory mechanism that insists on integrity from authors, reviewers, and publishers to establish higher standards in editorial processing. Ethical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and respect for individual contributions.

Peer-reviewed works are studies that uphold and implement the scientific method. It is crucial for all parties involved in the publication process (authors, readers, researchers, publishers, reviewers, and editors) to adhere to ethical principles. Scientific Research Communications adheres to both national and international standards for research and publication ethics. It complies with the Press Law, the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works, and the Higher Education Institutions' Directive on Scientific Research and Publication Ethics. Scientific Research Communications follows the International Ethical Publishing Principles issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

Duplicate Publication
Duplicate publication is when the same article or substantially similar articles are published in multiple journals. The editor will return such a manuscript without review. Subsequently, the editor may impose a temporary embargo on the author attempting duplicate publication, make a public announcement about the issue in the journal where the author has previously published (possibly in coordination with the editor of the journal that published the earlier article), or implement all of these measures.

 

Simultaneous Submission of the Same Study to Multiple Journals
Authors are not allowed to submit the same article to multiple journals simultaneously. If the editor learns of a possible simultaneous submission, they reserve the right to consult with the editor(s) of the other journal(s) involved. The editor may also return the article without review, reject it without consideration of any reviews, or discuss this decision with the other editor(s) involved. Additionally, the editor may decide to refuse further article submissions from the authors for a set period, notify the authors’ employers, or implement all of these measures.

 

Plagiarism
Plagiarism, duplication, ghost authorship/denied authorship, research/data fabrication, article slicing, sliced publication, copyright infringement, and concealing conflicts of interest are considered unethical behaviors. Any article not meeting accepted ethical standards will be removed from publication, including articles found to contain irregularities after publication.

 

Fabrication
Fabrication involves producing data not based on actual research, arranging or altering a submitted or published work based on falsified data, reporting or publishing it, or presenting a non-existent study as if it were conducted. It includes falsifying research records and obtained data, pretending to use methods, devices, and materials not actually utilized in the research, excluding data that does not align with the research hypothesis, manipulating data and/or results to fit relevant theories or assumptions, and distorting or shaping research results to favor the interests of supporting individuals or institutions.

 

Protection of Participants' Personal Data
Scientific Research Communications requires that all research involving personal or sensitive data or materials related to human participants, which are not legally public, undergo formal ethical review.

 

Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct
Scientific Research Communications adheres to COPE's "Ethical Toolkit for a Successful Editorial." Scientific Research Communications and its editors will take precautions to prevent the publication of articles where plagiarism, citation manipulation, data falsification, data fabrication, or other research misconduct has occurred. Under no circumstances will Scientific Research Communications or its editors knowingly permit such misconduct. If Scientific Research Communications or its editors become aware of any allegations of research misconduct concerning an article published in the journal, they will follow COPE’s guidelines in handling these claims.

 

Ethics Violation Notifications
Readers are encouraged to notify Scientific Research Communications (ISSN 2791-8742) by emailing admin@scientificrc.org if they notice a significant error or inaccuracy in an article published in the journal or have any complaints regarding editorial content (e.g., plagiarism, duplicate articles). We welcome such feedback as an opportunity for improvement and respond promptly and constructively.

 

Research Ethics
Scientific Research Communications upholds the highest standards of research ethics and adopts the international research ethics principles defined below. It is the responsibility of authors to ensure their articles comply with ethical standards.

  • Honest researchers do not engage in plagiarism.
  • They do not misattribute sources.
  • They do not conceal objections they cannot counter.
  • They do not distort opposing views.
  • They do not destroy or hide data.
  • The principles of integrity, quality, and transparency should be maintained in the design, review, and conduct of research.
  • The research team and participants should be fully informed about the purpose, methods, potential applications of the research, requirements of participation, and any risks involved.
  • Confidentiality of the information provided by research participants and the anonymity of respondents must be ensured.
  • Research should be designed to respect the autonomy and dignity of participants.
  • Participation in research should be voluntary and free from coercion.
  • Harm to participants should be avoided. Research should be planned to minimize any risks to participants.
  • There should be transparency regarding research independence; any conflicts of interest must be disclosed.
  • In experimental studies involving human subjects, participants who choose to participate must provide written informed consent. For children, those under guardianship, or individuals with documented mental health conditions, consent must be obtained from a legal guardian.
  • If the study is to be conducted in an institution or organization, approval must be obtained from that institution or organization.
  • In studies involving human subjects, the "Methods" section should state that informed consent was obtained from participants and that ethical approval was received from the institution where the study was conducted (in accordance with the TR Index Ethics Principles Flowchart).

For more detailed information, please consult the guidelines provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) at https://publicationethics.org/.