Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

Articles for the Pearson Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities are sent to two or three referees. While it is carried out as "Double Blind", the referee and the author cannot have information about each other's management, it can be monitored and controlled at all stages of the refereeing process carried out over it.

In this guide, rules have been established in line with the internationally accepted recommendations of COPE (Committe on Publication Ethics). It is aimed to inform the authors and readers about unethical behaviors and ethics, and to remind the rules that researchers who want to submit an article should follow. The criteria are classified as standard ethical rules that authors, referees and editors must comply with. In addition, basic criteria have been specified in the Pearson Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities

Ethical Conditions That Authors Must Comply With
-The authors are unconditionally responsible for complying with the ethical rules in the articles they have prepared.
-An article sent to the journal must not have been published as another journal or institution publication.
-References should be made to all sources used in the articles without questioning their type.

-References should not be made to sources that are not used or benefited from in the study. The main source of each reference given must be accessed, if this is not possible, the source must be stated as "citing".
-Raw data of studies based on statistical data should be available from the author. The author, referees or editor should be able to present these data (if any) together with the source, if requested.
-Only the names of the contributors should be included in the articles, and if possible, at the end of the article, it should be stated which author contributed to what extent or on what subject, and conflicts of interest should be mentioned.

Ethical Conditions That Arbitrators Must Follow
-Reviewers are not review bodies that simply accept or reject articles. In addition, it should present in a clear, understandable and detailed way how the articles should be developed, in which cases they will contribute more to the field, or if they are insufficient, in which subjects they are missing and should not be published.
-Referees should accept evaluations in their areas of expertise, otherwise they should notify the inviting official and should not accept it.
-The referees should evaluate the article by means of the forms determined as objective criteria and by interpreting it.
-Referees should be impartial and should not search for who the author might be.
-Recommendations to authors should be courteous and constructive. Statements that hurt the author and insult the work should be avoided.
-Referees must complete their evaluations within the given time limits for the publication process.

Ethical Conditions for Editors
-The editor-in-chief, assistant editors and field editors are the academic directors of the publication process in the journal. In this sense, the task they undertake has a critical importance in the publication process.
-Editors should basically comply with all editorial rules specified by COPE and fulfill their duties.
-The editor and the editorial board should ensure the communication between the editorial/advisory board, the author and the referees by observing ethical rules and confidentiality.
-Although it is not appropriate for them to act as referees, if they do, another referee must be appointed.
-Editors should never share author information with the referee, and the referee information with the author.

Practices Against Plagiarism and Unethical Behaviors
-In the Pearson Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, articles are subjected to similarity evaluation before being evaluated. The similarity rates of the articles are checked with the Turnitin software program. It is expected that the articles to be published in our journal (excluding the bibliography) will be at most 10%, and it is paid attention that the similarities within this rate are not in the form of block quotes. Texts that cannot be changed such as the original definition, legal rules, religious texts should be shown in double quotes. These texts should also be evaluated within the 10% plagiarism rate.
-If the article is derived from a thesis or a project, it must be specified. A study of this nature sent to the journal, and a thesis only by the advisor; If it is a project, the contributors from the project team can be shown as authors. If external authors are identified, the article will be rejected directly.

 

REFEREE PROCESS AND ARTICLE EVALUATION SYSTEM

Articles reviewed by the editor; It is directed to 2 referees to be evaluated by the Field Editor, taking into account their areas of expertise. At this stage, the Department (Field) Editor may select a referee from the Pearson Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities referee pool or propose a new referee suitable for the field of the study.

When the referees accept that they will evaluate the articles sent to them for evaluation; They undertake that they will evaluate the study on the https://www.pearsonjournal.com

 system within the defined time period and submit the evaluation reports of the study. In addition, the referee who accepts to evaluate a study undertakes that they will evaluate the content of the study, information and documents related to the study within the rules of confidentiality and guarantee that they will not share any process and document related to the study.

The Referee Evaluation Phase is completed when the referee creates the evaluation report. The referee completes his evaluation of the article by filling out the Pearson Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Peer Review Form. Pearson Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Peer Evaluation Form, from the referee, the originality of the study, the suitability of the abstract, the relevant and sufficient literature review, the suitability of the chosen method, the correct presentation of the findings, the sufficient results and the discussion, the scientific figures, tables and tables used in the study. asks him to evaluate that it has been prepared in accordance with the rules, that the resources are relevant and sufficient. The referee also evaluates that the study was carried out in accordance with the rules of scientific study in general, that the article was written with a good command of terminology, that the writing of the article was scientific and that it complies with the grammar rules.

In the General Evaluation Result and Decision stage of the Study, the referee declares the General Evaluation Result of the Study and its decision for publication of the Study. The decision options for the referee are as follows:

ACCEPT: It can be published exactly.

MINOR REVISION: May be published with minor corrections.

MAJOR REVISION: May be published after major corrections.

RET: It is not suitable for publication.

In addition, it is obligatory for the referees to write their opinions about the study in the "Opinions, Criticisms and Suggestions" section to be forwarded to the authors.

The Section (Field) Editor may request the author(s) to make corrections in their publications in line with the opinions of the referees who evaluated the publication. The authors are expected to re-edit their publications in line with these corrections from the referees. The final decision on the work to be published is made by the Editorial Board.

The author(s) may object to the evaluation opinions of the referees, provided that they show explanatory evidence. The objections made are evaluated by the Editorial Board and if necessary, different referees' opinions can be applied for the submitted publication.

Peer Review Process
Assignment of referee(s) for the article is performed by the Section Editor. The invitation email is sent automatically via the https://www.pearsonjournal.com system. The referee must decide within 7 days whether to referee the relevant study by clicking the link in the e-mail sent. The referee invitation can be extended for a maximum of 3 days. After the referee accepts the invitation, 30 days are automatically defined to evaluate the relevant work, based on the date on which the referee accepts the invitation. The Section Editor may define a maximum of 7 days extra time for the referee to complete the evaluation.

If the referees do not evaluate the study within a reasonable time, the Section (Field) Editor may send the relevant study to different referees for evaluation.