PLAGIARISM POLICY; EVALUATION PROCESS & PRINCIPLES

PLAGIARISM POLICY  &  EVALUATION PROCESS AND PRINCIPLES 

The articles sent to be published are expected to comply with the spelling, punctuational and general rules of the language they’re written in, as well as the spelling rules of the journal.  The articles sent to the journal are first analyzed and approved by the editor and the publication board, within the framework of the relevant criteria, and then scanned for “plagiarism” by means of some softwares such as the iThenticate which is currently being used. In consequence of the scanning of the main text in the article, the rate of similiarity to another texts without references shall not pass 15%, with the exclusion of the bibliography and the references. It could be asked the writer to improve the situation for the ratios between 10% and 30%. However, the article is rejected in case of similarities over 30% without references. In case of the similarity rate is more than 35%, even though references are shown, the article can be rejected by evaluating that the study is weak in terms of "originality" and "contribution to the field".

In addition, the articles written on any materials from an official museum, library, archive or excavation, or that include an image of original work / situation / excavation area from those mantioned officals, must have a publication permission certificate or correspondence received from the relevant institution. During the submition process to the Journal, the certificate or correspondence copy must be uploaded as an addition to the article document. Failure to submit such a document could be the reason for the refusal of the study.

In case of the positive result of this “pre-review” phase; the article is sent to two reviewers in compliance with the “Double blind peer review” principle. In case of the contrast views of the two reviewers, a third reviewer is asked for opinion. (The reviewers are designated in accordance with the area of specialization, among the names listed under the title of Academic Advisory Board of the journal. In case of  having an article with a specific subject out of the specialty of the scientists on the list,  the relevant scientists are consulted, and the list is updated by adding the names of these reviewers to the board list.) Accepting the articles to the publication programme is possible with at least two “positive reports” from the related scientific advisors/reviewers. In case of the equality of positive or negative reports of the reviewers, or in case of any hesitation, the decisions of the Editor and the Editorial Board could determine the result. During the mentioned assesment process, the writer could be asked to make the necessary revisions and corrections.