Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences is a journal that is committed to science and publishing ethics.

Publication Ethics Principles

Publication Ethics can be defined as a self-regulation mechanism that insists on honesty on behalf of authors, reviewers, and publishers to establish higher standards of editorial handling. Ethical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public confidence in scientific findings, and people's opinions being respected.

• Honest researchers do not plagiarize.

• Does not cite sources incorrectly.

• They do not hide objections that they cannot refute.

• They do not distort opposing views.

• They do not destroy or hide data.

Peer-reviewed studies support and implement the scientific method. At this point, it is of great importance that all parties involved in the publication process (authors, readers, researchers, publisher, referees, and editors) comply with ethical principles.

ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences adheres to national and international research and publication ethics standards. It complies with Press Law, Intellectual and Artistic Works Law and Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) has adopted the International Ethical Publishing Principles published by It also undertakes to abide by the Decisions of the Türkiye Editors' Workshop.

• Press Law (National Legislation)

• Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (National Legislation)

• Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive (National Legislation)

• Transparency and Best Practice in Academic Publishing (International Criteria)

• Türkiye Editors' Workshop Decisions (National Criteria)

 

Simultaneous submission of the same work to more than one journal
Authors cannot submit the same article to more than one journal simultaneously. The editor reserves the right to consult the other editor(s) receiving the article if it learns of possible simultaneous submission. In addition, the editor may return the article without review or reject it without considering the reviews or take this decision by discussing it with the other relevant editor(s) and may decide not to accept article submissions from the authors for a certain period of time. It can also write to the author's employers or implement all of these measures together.

Plagiarism Prevention Control
To present the ideas, methods, data, practices, writings, figures or works of others as their own work, in whole or in part, without attribution in accordance with scientific rules.

ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences scans all submitted articles to prevent plagiarism. The studies submitted for review are checked for plagiarism using Ithenticate software. The similarity rate is expected to be less than 15%. The primary similarity measure is that the author complies with the citation and citation rules. Even though the similarity rate is 1%, plagiarism may still be in question if the citation and citation are not duly made. In this respect, citation and citation rules should be known and carefully applied by the author:

ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences,
Plagiarism, duplication, false authorship/denied authorship, research/data fabrication, article slicing, slicing, copyright infringement, and concealment of conflict of interest are considered unethical behaviors. All articles that do not comply with accepted ethical standards are removed from the publication. This includes articles with possible irregularities and inconsistencies detected after publication.

Forgery
To produce data that is not based on research, to edit or change the presented or published work on the basis of unrealistic data, to report or publish them, to make research that has not been done appear as if it has been done.

To falsify research records and obtained data, to present methods, devices, and materials that are not used in the research as if they were used, not to evaluate data that are not suitable for the research hypothesis, to manipulate data and/or results in order to fit the relevant theory or assumptions, to falsify or shape.

Protection of Participants' Personal Data
ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences requires that all research involving personal or sensitive data or material relating to human participants that is not legally available to the public is subject to formal ethical review.

Handling Allegations of Research Abuse
ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences complies with COPE's Ethics Toolkit for a Successful Editorial. ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences editors will take action to prevent the publication of articles in which plagiarism, citation manipulation, data tampering, data fabrication, and other research misconduct occurred. In no event will the ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences editors knowingly allow such abuse to happen. Suppose the ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences editors are aware of any allegations of research misconduct related to an article published in their journal. In that case, they will follow COPE's guidelines regarding the allegations.

Ethical Violation Notices
When readers notice a significant error or inaccuracy in an article published in the ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences or have any complaints about editorial content (plagiarism, duplicate articles, etc.), they can e-mail submission@ispecjournal.com. You may notify us by sending an e-mail. We welcome applications as they will provide opportunities for us to develop, and we respond quickly and constructively.

 

Correction, Withdrawal, Expression of Concern
Editors may consider correcting if minor errors are detected in the published article that do not affect the findings, comments, and conclusions. Editors should consider retracting the article in case of significant errors/violations that invalidate the findings and conclusions. Suppose there is a possibility of misuse of research or publication by the authors. In that case, If there is evidence that the findings are unreliable and that the authors' institutions did not investigate the incident, or if the potential investigation seems unfair or inconclusive, editors should consider stating concern. The COPE and ICJME guidelines are considered concerning correction, withdrawal, or expression of concern.

Publication of Studies Based on Survey and Interview
ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences adopts the "Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" and "Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers" of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to create ethical assurance in scientific periodicals. In this context, the following points should be followed in the studies submitted to the journal:

1. For research in all branches of science that requires ethics committee approval (ethics committee approval should be obtained; this approval should be stated and documented in the article).

2. In research requiring ethics committee permission, information about the permission (name of the committee, date, and number) is in the method section and on one of the first/last pages of the article. In case reports, information about signing the informed consent/consent form should be included in the article.

Special Issue Publishing Policy
A special issue can be published in our journal once a year upon the request of the Editorial Board. Articles sent for inclusion in a special issue are first subjected to editorial review. Then, it is examined in terms of compliance with the writing rules of the journal, and similarity is scanned to prevent plagiarism. After these stages, it is taken as long as the double-sided blanking model is used.

 

Editorial Confidentiality Obligation
ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences editors treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents; this means they will not disclose information about an article to anyone without the authors' permission. During the article review process, the following people can access the articles: Editors, Reviewers, and Editorial Board Members. The only situation in which details about a manuscript may be passed to a third party without the authors' consent is if the editor suspects serious research misconduct.

Allegations-Suspects of Scientific Misconduct
Scientific misconduct has different definitions. ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences addresses these issues case-by-case while following the guidelines established by major editorial ethics institutions. If the editor suspects an ethical or alleged violation, they are obliged to take action. This task covers both published and unpublished articles. The editor should not simply reject articles that raise concerns about potential abuse. Ethically, it is obliged to follow the alleged lawsuits. The editor should follow the COPE flowcharts where appropriate.

Editors should first seek a response from anyone suspected of misconduct. If they are unsatisfied with the answer, they should ask the relevant employers or institutions to investigate. The editor should use all reasonable efforts to ensure that an appropriate investigation into the alleged misconduct is carried out; if this does not happen, the editor should make all reasonable attempts to persist in finding a solution to the problem. This is an arduous but essential task.

ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences complies with COPE's Ethics Toolkit for a Successful Editorial. ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences’ editors will take action to prevent the publication of articles in which plagiarism, citation manipulation, data tampering, data fabrication, and other research misconduct occurred. In no event will the ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences or its editors knowingly allow such abuse to occur. Suppose the ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences editors are aware of any allegations of research misconduct related to an article published in their journal. In that case, they will follow COPE's guidelines regarding the allegations.

Reviewers should notify the Editor when they suspect research or publication misconduct. The editor is responsible for carrying out the necessary actions by following the COPE recommendations.
ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences, COPE applies it to its flow charts when faced with misconduct allegations in the following or similar matters.

• What to do when rebroadcast is suspected

• What to do when plagiarism is suspected

• What to do when fabricated data is suspected

• What to do in requests for change of authorship

• What to do when an undisclosed conflict of interest is suspected

• What to do when unfair or gift authorship is suspected

• What to do when an ethical problem is suspected in an article

• Ethical violation, suspected email, etc. What to do when notified directly with

• What to do when a suspected ethical violation is announced via social media.

Complaint Procedure
This procedure applies to complaints about content, procedures, or policies that are the responsibility of the ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences or our editorial staff. Complaints can provide an opportunity and incentive for improvement, and we aim to respond quickly, courteously, and constructively.

The complaint must relate to the content, procedures, or policies that are the responsibility of the Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences or our editorial staff. Complaints should be emailed directly to the ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences and will be treated confidentially. The editor immediately responds to complaints. The editor follows the procedure regarding complaints outlined in the COPE flowchart.

Complaints are reviewed by the relevant member of the editorial team, and if they cannot be resolved, the following processes are followed:

• If this initial response is deemed inadequate, the complainant may request that their complaint be forwarded to a more senior journal member.

• Complaints can be forwarded to the editor-in-chief if the complainant is unsatisfied.

• A complete response will be given within two weeks if possible.

COPE publishes a code of practice for scientific journal editors. This will make resolving disputes with editors, journals, and publishers easier, but only after the journal's complaints procedures are exhausted.

Objection Process
We welcome severe objections from editors and reviewers to reviews. If you think we rejected your article because we misunderstood the scientific content, please send an objection message to our editorial team from submission@ispecjournal.com. Do not try to submit a revised version of your article at this stage. If, after reading your objection letter, we understand that your objection is justified, we may invite you to submit a revised version of your article. Thus, your work is sent back to the external referee process. Please include as much detail as possible in the appeal letter. Finally, we can only consider one objection per article, so please invest time and effort in writing the letter in detail to make your objection clear; you have a chance, so use it well. We have found that prolonged negotiation over rejected articles is often unsatisfactory for authors and editors, so we do not process multiple appeals for the same work.

Conflicts of Interest
A conflict of interest arises when professional judgment regarding a primary interest may be affected by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal competition). We believe that in order to make the best decision on how to handle an article, we need to know the authors' competing interests and that if we publish the article, the readers should know them, too.

Any financial or other interest that may conflict with one's work, significantly impair objectivity or provide an unfair advantage to any person or entity. All financial support resources and the role of sponsors in the study should be explained during the research and the preparation of the article. If there is no source of funding, this should also be stated. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include consultations, hiring, and grants. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences has a set process for handling submissions from editors, employees, or editorial board members to ensure unbiased review. Such posts are primarily directed to other journals. If this is not possible, the post's owner will be suspended from the journal. These submissions are reviewed through a double-blind process.

The editor should not be involved in decisions about articles written by him or his family members. In addition, such work should be subject to all the journal's usual procedures. The editor should follow the ICMJE guidelines regarding disclosing potential conflicts of interest between authors and reviewers.

Principles of Research Ethics
ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences observes the highest standards in research ethics and adopts the international research ethics principles defined below. The authors are responsible for ensuring that the articles comply with the ethical rules.

• Integrity, quality, and transparency should be ensured in the design, review, and conduct of the research.

• The research team and participants, the purpose of the research, its methods, and possible uses should be fully informed about the necessities and risks of participating in the study.

• Confidentiality of information provided by research participants and confidentiality of respondents should be ensured. Research should be designed to preserve the autonomy and dignity of the participants.

• Research participants should take part in the research voluntarily and should not be under any coercion.

• Damage to the participants should be avoided. The research should be planned to minimize their risk.

• Be clear about research independence; If there is a conflict of interest, it should be stated.

• In experimental studies with human subjects, written informed consent must be obtained from participants who decide to participate. The consent of the legal guardian of children and custodians or those with a confirmed mental illness must be obtained.

• If the study is carried out in any institution or organization, approval must be obtained from that institution or organization.

• In studies with a human element, it should be stated in the “methods” section that “informed consent” was obtained from the participants and ethics committee approval was obtained from the institution where the study was conducted.

Declaration of Author Contributions

A short paragraph specifying their contributions must be provided for research articles with several authors. The following statements should be used “Conceptualization, X.X. and Y.Y.; methodology, X.X.; software, X.X.; validation, X.X., Y.Y. and Z.Z.; formal analysis, X.X.; investigation, X.X.; resources, X.X.; data curation, X.X.; writing—original draft preparation, X.X.; writing—review and editing, X.X.; visualization, X.X.; supervision, X.X.; project administration, X.X.; funding acquisition, Y.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.” Please turn to the CRediT taxonomy for the term explanation. Authorship must be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work reported.

Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Declare any conflicts of interest or state “The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.” The authors disclaim any descriptions and declarations of personal circumstances or interests that might be perceived as inappropriate in the representation or interpretation of reported research results. Any role in the distribution design of funders; storage, analysis or interpretation; When deciding to write or publish the article, the results must be declared in this section. If there is no role, please “Funders have no role in distribution design; during storage, analysis or interpretation; in the decision to write the article or publish the results.”

Funding

“This research received no external funding” or “This research was funded by NAME OF FUNDER, grant number XXX” and “The APC was funded by XXX”. Check carefully that the details are accurate and use the standard spelling of funding agency names at https://search.crossref.org/funding. Any errors may affect your future funding.

Ethics approval: No approval from the research ethics committee was required to accomplish the goals of this study. However, the use of all the animals was with the consent of the participating farmers. Ethical approval for animals, patients, or participants was given by the Faculty of xxxxxxxxxx ethical committee (No:2023/xxx).

 

Acknowledgments

In this section, you can acknowledge any support provided that is not covered by the author's contribution or funding sections. This may include administrative and technical support or in-kind donations (e.g. materials used for experiments). Additionally, postgraduate studies should also be given in this department.