The manuscript evaluation and publication procedures at OPUS contribute to the impartial dissemination and advancement of knowledge. Consequently, these processes significantly impact the quality of authors’ articles and the standing of the institutions backing them. It is paramount for all stakeholders – including authors, readers, researchers, publishers, referees, and editors – to adhere to ethical standards. At OPUS, we adhere to the recommendations outlined in the guidelines and flowcharts available on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) website.

The author (s) who submitted their manuscripts to OPUS are expected to comply with the following ethical responsibilities:

• The manuscript submitted should be original and authors should cite or/and make reference to other studies used in a complete and correct manner.
• Authors should mention and explain if there is a conflict of interest regarding the manuscript submitted for the publication.
• The authors may be asked to present raw data about their manuscripts during the evaluation process. In such a situation, the authors should be able to provide expected data and information to the editorial board and scientific board.
• Authors should have necessary certificates showing that they have right to use data, have permissions to conduct research/analysis or Institutional Review Board permission to conduct research on the subjects.
• The author (s) has an obligation to inform the editor or publisher in case of noticing a mistake about their manuscripts that are published, in early preview stage or during evaluation process; and to cooperate with the editor for corrections or withdrawal.
• Authors cannot submit their manuscripts more than one journal simultaneously. Each application can be started following the completion of previous application. Manuscripts published in somewhere else cannot be submitted to OPUS Journal of Society Research.
• Changes in authorship responsibilities (i.e adding an author, changing authors’ name orders, omitting an author) cannot be offered for the manuscripts after their evaluation process started.

Generative AI usage

• Utilizing a generative AI tool/LLM for copywriting any section of an article, including abstracts or literature reviews, is not allowed. Authors are required to maintain responsibility for the work’s accuracy, integrity, and validity.
• The use of a generative AI tool/LLM for generating or reporting results is prohibited. Authors must take ownership of creating and interpreting their work, ensuring its accuracy, integrity, and validity.
• In-text reporting of statistics with a generative AI tool/LLM is prohibited due to concerns about data authenticity. However, using such tools to aid analysis is acceptable.
• Employing a generative AI tool/LLM for copy-editing to enhance language and readability is permissible, similar to standard spelling and grammar tools. Authors are still accountable for the original work.
• Submission and publication of images created by AI tools or large-scale generative models are not permitted.

The editors and the field editors of OPUS is expected to carry our the duties and responsibilities based on “COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practices Guidelines for Journal Editors” and “COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors”  published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) below:

Editors are responsible for each article published in OPUS. With this regard, editors have the roles and responsibilities below:

• Making efforts to meet the information needs of the readers and the authors,
• Ensuring the continuing development of the journal,
• Conducting and managing processes to improve the quality of published articles,
• Supporting freedom of thought
• Ensuring academic integrity
• Maintaining publication processes without compromising from intellectual property rights and ethical standard,
• Being clear and transparent on the issues that require correction and explanation in terms of publication.

• Editors must make decisions by taking the readers, researchers and practitioners’ expectations in terms of information, skills and experiences into account.
• They should ensure that the published articles are original and make a contribution to readers, researchers, practitioners and the scientific area.
• Also, editors have the responsibility to pay attention to the feedbacks from readers, editors and practitioners, and to report back in an explanatory and informative way.

• Editors must accept or decline the manuscripts based on their importance, originality, clarity and the aims of the journal.
• Editors must start preliminary examination process of the manuscript unless they do not have a major problem.
• Editors must take positive comments from referees into consideration if there is not a major problem regarding the manuscript.
• New editors should not make changes in decisions taken by previous editors about the manuscripts if there is not a serious problem.
• “Blind Review and Evaluation Process” must be published and editors must put all their efforts to prevent deviations from pre-determined processes.
• Editors must publish a “Author Guidelines” which explains all author duties in details. This guideline must be updated periodically.
• Editors must provide explanatory and informative notifications and feedbacks to the authors.

The duties and responsibilities of the editors towards the referees are as followings:

• Determining referees in conformity with the topic of the manuscript.
• Providing information and guidance that referees will need in the evaluation phase.
• Considering whether there is a conflict of interest between the authors and the referees.
• Editors should keep the referee’s credentials confidential in the context of blind review process.
• Editors should encourage referees to evaluate the manuscripts in an impartial, scientific and objective manner.
• Editors should evaluate referees according to their performance and ability provide feedback on time.
• Editors should determine policies and practices that enhance referees’ performance.
• Editors should take steps to update the referee pool continuously and dynamically.
• Editors should prevent imprudent and non-scientific evaluations.
• Editors should take steps to ensure that the pool of referees consists of wide range of experts.

• Editors must ensure that all members of the advisory board act in accordance with the publication processes and instructions.
• Editors must inform the advisory board members about the publication policies and recent developments.
• Editor must ensure that Advisory Board members evaluate the articles impartially and independently.
• Editors should determine new advisory board members based on their contributions and qualities.
• Editors should send articles to advisory board members that match to their area of expertise.
• Editors should contact with the advisory board members periodically.
• Editors should arrange meetings with Advisory Board members to discuss publication policies and to evaluate on the journal’s achievements periodically.

• The relationship between editors (chief editor and chapter editors) and the publisher is based on the editorial independence principle. In accordance with the written agreement between the editors and the publisher, all the decisions of the editors are independent of the publisher and the journal owner.

• Editors are responsible for applying “Blind Review and Evaluation Process” that is written in Journal’s publishing policies. In this regard, editors ensure that evaluation process for each manuscript is completed fairly, impartially and on time.

• Editors are responsible for publishing every article published in the journal in accordance with journal publishing policies and international standards.

• Editors are responsible to protect personal data on the subjects in the articles or visuals used in the manuscripts. Editors must decline the manuscripts in which the explicit consent of the subjects used in the researches are not documented. Also, editors are responsible to protect personal data of  authors, referees and  readers. 

• Editors must ensure the protection of human and animal rights experimented in the articles submitted to journal for assessment. In case of lacking ethics committee approval or permissions for conducting experiments, editors are expected to decline the article.

• Editors are liable to take necessary measures against the possible abuses and misconducts. In addition to make a detailed and an objective investigation to determine and evaluate reports on abuse and misconduct, editors are responsible to share the evidence about the issue.

• Editors must ensure quickly to correct the judgments that are erroneous, inconsistent or misleading in the articles.

• Editors are responsible to protect intellectual propery rights of the articles published and to defend rights of the author(s) and the journal in case of the violation of such rights.
• Also, editors are liable to take necessary measures to prevent published articles to violate other publications’ intellectual property rights.

• Editors must take convincing criticisms against published articles into consideration and must present a constructive attitude against such criticisms.
• Editors must grant authors right to reply to the criticisms against their articles.
• Editors should nor ignore or exclude articles containing negative results.

Editors are responsible to examine auhors’, referees’ or readers’ complaints carefully and to reply to those complaints in an enlightening and explanatory manner.

Editors guarantee the completion of publication processes of the manuscripts independently and impartially.

The quality of a publication depends on the blind review process, which provides the objectivity and independent evaluation of the publication. OPUS Journal of Social Research evaluation process is carried out with the principle of double blind peer review. The referees cannot contact the authors directly. Instead, the feedbacks and comments are conveyed through management system of the journal. In this process, the feedbacks and comments of the referees are sent to the author (s) through the editor. In this context, the referees of the OPUS are expected to have the following ethical responsibilities:
• The referees should only evaluate the manuscript related to their field of expertise. 
• They should evaluate in impartiality and confidentiality. 
• If the referees think that there is a conflict of interest in the evaluation process, they should refuse to review the manuscript, and immediately inform the editor of the journal. 
• The referees cannot cite or use the manuscript unless it is published.
• The evaluation process should be objective and free from the authors’/referees’ nationality, gender, religious and political beliefs and commercial interests. 
• All comments should be constrictive and gentle, also not include any humiliating phrases including hostility, slander and insults.
• All referees should submit their evaluation on time and respect the aforementioned ethical responsibilities 

OPUS’a publisher ADAMOR Society Research Center, and OPUS’s Editorial Board act upon the ethical responsibilities below:

• Editors are responsible for the all publication processes of the manuscripts submitted to OPUS Journal of Society Research. Within this framework, editor-in-chief and Area Editors are the decision-makers without financial or political rewards.
• It ensures independent editorial decisions.
• The Publisher protects intellectual property rights and copyrights of the each articles published in OPUS Journal of Society Research, and assume liability to save a copy.
• The publisher has the responsibility to take all measures against scientific abuse, citation gangs and plagiarism towards the editors.

Please sent us your complaints via e-mail to editor@opusjournal.net if you notice an unethical conduct or content published in OPUS apart from ethical responsibilities mentioned above.