Sosyoekonomi Journal is dedicated to ensuring best practices on ethical matters, errors and retractions. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is expected of all parties involved: Editors, Authors and Reviewers. The following ethics topics outlined for editors, authors, and reviewers are based on the COPE Code of Conduct for journal editors. Editors, authors, and reviewers will also adhere to the Sosyoekonomi Journal submission guidelines.
Publication Decisions The editor has complete responsibility and authority to accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The editor does not reject papers based on suspicions, they shall have proof of misconduct.
Review of Manuscripts The editor ensures that each manuscript submitted to the Sosyoekonomi Journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. Editor also ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality, making use of appropriate software to do so. Following desk review, the manuscript is forwarded blind peer review to make a recommendation to accept, reject, or modify the manuscript.
Ethical Guidelines The editor shall ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines. Editors take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Confidentiality The editor ensures that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest The editor shall not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his/her own research without written consent of the author.
Originality and Plagiarism The authors must ensure that their work is entirely original works, and relevant previous work/words and publications, both by others and the authors' own, should be appropriately acknowledged and referenced. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere in any language.
Multiple Submissions Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
Authorship Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. The corresponding author should act as a point of contact between the editor and the other authors and should keep co-authors informed and involve them in major decisions about the publication. Any change to the author list should be approved by all authors including any who have been removed from the list.
Peer Review Process Authors must participate in the peer review process. They should inform the editor if they withdraw their work from review, or choose not to respond to reviewer comments after receiving a conditional acceptance. Authors must respond to reviewers' comments in a professional and timely manner.
Data Authenticity and Retention Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic. They should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication (making up research data), falsification (manipulation of existing data) or inappropriate data manipulation.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest All authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts including a statement disclosing any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that may be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. Funding sources should be disclosed.
Fundamental Errors Authors should alert the editor promptly if they discover an error in any submitted, accepted or published work. Authors should cooperate with editors in issuing corrections or retractions when required.
Research on Human Subjects When appropriate, all authors must cite approval by an institutional review board (IRB) for research on human subjects.
Confidentiality Reviewers must keep all manuscript received for review confidential. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Standards of Objectivity Reviewers should be objective and constructive in their reviews with no personal criticism of the author.
Supporting Argument Reviewers should express their views clearly and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. They should not make derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations. Reviewers should be specific in their criticisms, and provide evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements such as, 'this work has been done before', to help editors in their evaluation and decision and in fairness to the authors.
Plagiarism, Fraud and Other Ethical Concerns Reviewers should let the editor know if they suspect/find that a manuscript is a substantial copy of another work, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible. Reviewers should also identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
Acknowledgement of Sources Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. They should identify cases in which relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited in the reference section. They should point out whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source.
Conflicts of Interest Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Promptness Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time should also notify the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.
Scientific, Peer Reviewed, Quarterly