Ethical Principles – BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS RESEARCH JOURNAL

Publication Ethics Principles

Business and Economics Research Journal (BERJ) is committed to upholding the rules of publication ethics at all stages of the publication process, and BERJ adopts the ethical standards which are accepted and announced by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). In this context, BERJ is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards for all parties (authors, reviewers, and editor/editor board) involved in publishing in a peer-reviewed journal.

Ethical Responsibilities of Editor

The editor is responsible for every study published in the Journal. In this context, the general duties and responsibilities of the editor are as follows:

Getting views from authors, reviewers, readers, and editorial board members for the improvement of the Journal’s processes, and constantly trying to improve the processes of the Journal,
Making efforts to improve the quality of studies to be published in the Journal,
Ensuring the continuity of the Journal’s processes by observing intellectual property rights and ethical standards,
Supporting freedom of thought and expression, taking into account intellectual property rights, laws, and ethical standards,
Supporting the information and training activities of researchers on research ethics and publication ethics and the initiatives designed for this purpose,
Assessing the effects of the Journal’s policies on author and reviewer behaviors and revising Journal policies, as required,
Publishing corrections, clarifications, or apologies when necessary.

Relations with readers

The editor should inform the readers about who funded the studies published in the Journal and the role of the funders in the research and publication processes of the study.
The editor should ensure that all studies published in the Journal are reviewed by qualified referees working in that field or having a good knowledge of the subject.
If a section in the Journal includes non-peer-reviewed studies, the editor should clearly state this to the readers.
The editor should adopt processes that encourage accurate, complete, clear, and precise reporting of research.
The editor should inform the readers about the authors who contributed to the study and the contribution rates of the authors.
The editor should consider the feedback from the readers and provide timely, informative/explanatory feedback.
The editor should evaluate the submitted manuscripts by considering the readers of the Journal’s knowledge, experience, and expectations and pay attention to the originality and contribution to the readers and the literature.

Relations with authors

The editor should accept or reject a manuscript submitted to the Journal based on its originality, importance, contribution to the literature, and suitability for the Journal’s scope.
The editor should take the manuscript into the pre-evaluation process unless serious problems (in terms of suitability for the Journal’s scope, content, format/writing shapes, plagiarism, etc.) in the manuscript.
The editor should evaluate the submitted manuscripts objectively, regardless of the authors’ race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political opinion.
The peer-review process should be explained in detail, and the editor should try to prevent any possible deviations from this process.
The editor should publish a guide (Author Guidelines) that can answer the expectations and questions of the authors in detail and should update this guide when necessary.
The editor and any editorial staff must not share the information about the submitted manuscripts with anyone other than the responsible author, reviewers, potential reviewers, advisers who received opinions in the editorial process, and the publisher. The information about manuscripts must be kept confidential.
The editor and anyone involved in the editorial process must not use the information and materials in the unpublished manuscripts submitted to the Journal without the authors’ written permission in their own studies.

Relationships with reviewers

The editor should appoint reviewers suitable for the subject of the study. If there are no right reviewers in the reviewer database, he/she should search for new reviewers using various databases. The editor should not appoint a reviewer who works or has recently (e.g., within the past 3 years) worked at the same institution as the authors, or has recently co-authored a study with the author or authors.
The editor should ask the reviewers to disclose any potential conflict of interest before they agree to review a manuscript.
The editor should ensure that the names of the reviewers are kept confidential (in the blind review system) unless the open review system is used and this is expressly declared.
The editor should provide the information and guidance that reviewers may need during the review process.
The editor should monitor the reviewers with timing and reporting performance criteria. The editor should stop using reviewers who consistently sending reports late, poor-quality reports, and use discourteous language. The editor should constantly update the reviewer database in these aspects.
The editor should seek to develop policies to increase the contribution and performance of reviewers to the Journal.
The editor should encourage the reviewers to be careful about the ethics issues and plagiarism and to comment.
The editor should send reviewers’ comments to the authors in their entirety unless they contain libelous remarks or non-academic wording.

Relations with editorial board members

The editor should inform the new editorial board members about the Journal’s policies and processes, and the existing editorial board members about new policies and developments.
The editor should select the editorial board members from qualified persons who can contribute to the Journal and should regularly review the composition of the editorial board.
The editor should consider the suggestions and opinions of the editorial board members about the policies and processes of the Journal and should give feedback to them.

Editorial and blind review processes

The editor should try to ensure that the peer review is fair, unbiased, and timely.
The editor should ensure that the information and materials related to the studies in the peer-review process remain confidential while being reviewed.
The editor should take steps to improve the quality of reviewers’ reporting and the studies published in the Journal.

Protecting individual data

The editor should ensure the confidentiality of individual information regarding the persons or images/visuals included in the studies submitted to the Journal. In addition, the editor is responsible for the protection of the individual data shared by the authors, referees, and readers with the Journal.

Encouraging ethical research

In studies that require ethics committee approval, the Editor should request the ethics committee approval from an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) during the article submission process. However, the editor should be aware that the ethics committee approval alone does not mean that a study is in compliance with ethical principles.

Dealing with possible misconduct

If the editor suspects potential misconduct regarding the studies involved in the peer review process or published, or if he/she is informed that such a possible situation exists, the editor is responsible for doing the necessary research and investigations.

Intellectual property rights

The editor should be alert to possible intellectual property issues and protect the intellectual property rights of the studies published in the Journal. The editor should support authors whose copyright has been breached or whose study has been plagiarized. In addition, the editor should be alert to ensure that the studies published in the Journal do not violate the intellectual property rights of other publications. For this purpose, the editor should adopt systems and practices to prevent plagiarism (using plagiarism software, searching for similar titles in databases, etc.).

Conflicts of interest

The editor should consider possible conflicts of interest between authors, reviewers, and editorial/advisory board members, and manage the publication process independently and impartially, regardless of who is submitting the manuscript to the Journal. The editor should not suggest reviewing to the authors who have manuscripts in the peer-review process in the Journal. If there is a conflict of interest regarding their studies, the editor should ask the authors to declare it.

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must have contributed to the study in conceptualization and study design, data collection, data analysis and interpretation of results, writing the first draft of the manuscript, reviewing and editing of the manuscript. Persons who did not contribute adequately to the writing of the manuscript should not be cited as authors, but they should be acknowledged in an “Acknowledgements” section.
The first version of the manuscript sent to the Journal and the final version at the end of the peer review process must be read and approved by all authors.
Corresponding author is the person who takes primary responsibility for communication with the Journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process. Although the primary responsibility for communication with the Journal is the corresponding author, the Editor also sends copies of all correspondence to other authors. After publication, the corresponding author continues to be in contact with the Journal on issues such as critiques of the study and/or additional information/data requesting. For all that, all authors accept joint responsibility for their study at all stages/situations. However, if the authors take responsibility only for certain parts of the study, especially in studies involving different disciplines, this should be stated in the study.
Manuscripts submitted to the Journal have not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. The manuscripts produced from papers presented in congresses and symposiums, but only abstracts of papers were been published are submitted to the Journal, if this situation is stated on the first page of the manuscript.
All submitted manuscripts to the Journal must be original. Authors should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. Authors should not present the original ideas, methods, data or works of others as their own works, in whole or in part, without citing in accordance with citation principles. The sources cited must always be shown in compliance with citation principles. Authors submitting manuscripts to the Journal are considered to have guaranteed that the manuscript does not contain plagiarism and is their work.
Manuscripts must comply with the writing rules specified in the Author Guidelines section. The Editor/Editorial Board, if necessary, has a right to require changes relevant to the writing shapes or content of the manuscript.
Authors who want to withdraw their submitted manuscripts due to delays in the peer review process or other reasons must inform the Editor. Authors can withdraw their manuscripts with the approval of the Editor. The Editor may ask the authors to wait until the end of the peer review, whose reviewing process is ongoing.
During the editorial and/or referee evaluation process, authors may be asked to submit the raw data they used in their studies. Authors should provide access to the datasets they use in their studies, if deemed necessary.
For all articles published in BERJ, copyright is retained by the authors. The authors authorize BERJ to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher. Open access articles published in BERJ are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License. There is no royalty payment to authors for published articles.
If authors detect any errors in their submitted, accepted, or published work, they should immediately alert the editor. Authors should cooperate with the editor in issuing corrections or retractions when required.
Authors should disclose in their manuscript any research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, supply of equipment or materials, and other support. Also, authors should disclose all potential conflicts of interest when submitting their manuscripts.
BERJ adopts the principles set by COPE regarding the authorship and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Authors who use artificial intelligence tools in writing a manuscript, producing images or graphical elements of the manuscript, or collecting and analyzing data should be transparent in disclosing in the relevant section (e.g., Material and Method, or at the end of the manuscript) of the paper how the AI tool was used and which tool was used. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscripts, including parts generated by an artificial intelligence tool, and they are also responsible for possible research and publication ethics violations.

Ethical Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

BERJ uses the “double-blind reviewing system” to evaluate the submitted manuscript. This evaluation system ensures quality, objective and independent evaluation and provides confidence. For this purpose, a study that has passed the pre-evaluation stage and is included in the peer-review process is sent to at least two reviewers. The names of the reviewers are not shared with the authors, and the authors’ names are not shared with the reviewers. The manuscript and other files (review form, supplementary data files, etc.) are delivered to the reviewers by the editor, and files from the reviewers are also delivered to the authors by the editor. The editor should monitor that the referees complete the manuscript evaluation process objectively, independently, and ethically. In this context, reviewers are expected to comply with the following ethical responsibilities.

To make an accurate evaluation, the reviewers should accept to review manuscripts for which they have the necessary expertise and can evaluate on time.
Since the blind refereeing system is applied, the reviewers cannot see the authors’ names, and the authors cannot see the reviewers’ names. Reviewers and authors should not communicate directly with each other. Reviewers should not share information about the studies they are evaluating with others. If the reviewer needs to consult or get the opinion of someone else on a particular issue related to the study, she/he should inform the editor and get the editor’s approval.
Reviewers should evaluate the manuscripts impartially and independently. They should make their assessments without being influenced by the origin of the manuscript, nationality, religious and political beliefs, or commercial considerations.
Reviewers should use constructive/polite language and wording to contribute to the study they are evaluating. They should avoid making insulting, defamatory, or provocative personal comments and be objective and constructive in their evaluations.
Reviewers should not use the information and data in the manuscripts during the peer-review process to benefit their own or someone else. Reviewers can only cite the study after being published in a journal.
If the reviewers can make their evaluations within the period determined by the Journal editorial, they should accept the reviewing proposal. They should send their reports to the editor within this period. If there will be no evaluation opportunity within this period, the reviewers should inform the editor.
If the reviewers have decided that the manuscript is not published, they should write the reasons for this decision in detail and clearly in their reports.
Reviewers should indicate in their reports that there is a significant similarity between the manuscript and a previously published article, quotations from other sources are not cited, and the citation formatting is not correct. If the reviewers think plagiarism is possible in the study, they should detail this situation in their report. Reviewers may request the similarity reports related to manuscripts they have evaluated from the editor.
Reviewers should not accept to evaluate the manuscripts that have conflicts of interest arising from competition, cooperation, or other relationships with the authors or any of the companies or institutions connected to the study. Reviewers who think that there is a conflict of interest during the evaluation process should notify the editor of this situation and terminate the evaluation process.

Research Ethics

Research ethics is a set of ethical rules that guide researchers about how scientific research should be done. In this context, the fundamental research ethics principles that researchers/authors are expected to comply with are as follows.

Researchers/authors should share the data, materials, tools, and resources they use in their studies, and they should also clearly share the findings of the studies.
Principles of integrity, transparency, and quality should be ensured in designing and conducting the research.
The independence of the research should be clear, and any conflict of interest should be stated.
All participants/subjects should participate in the research voluntarily, without any coercion or influence, and the rights, dignity, and autonomy of the participants should be respected and protected.
Participants should be informed about the purpose, methods, application processes, and risks of the research, and informed consent should be obtained from the participants.
Privacy and confidentiality of the data collected from the participants and storage security should be ensured.
Any possible harm to the participants should be avoided. Possible physical, social, psychological, and all other types of harm should be minimized.
In studies requiring ethics committee approval, ethics committee approval should be obtained and documented. In this context, clinical, experimental, and other scientific research on humans should be approved by the ethics board of the relevant institutions. The information that ethics committee approval is obtained should also be stated in the “methodology/method-data” section of the study.
If the study is to be carried out in any institution or organization, permission should be obtained from the institution/organization.

Some detailed resources for research and publication ethics:
Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (COPE)
COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
COPE Guidelines
COPE Position Statement for Authorship and AI Tools
Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive (Higher Education Council, Turkiye)
Ethical Principles Flowchart of ULAKBIM TR Index