Ethical Principles

Research and Publication Ethics are followed in articles published in Sociologca. In this context, in all matters not mentioned below regarding the suitability of the study in terms of scientific research and publication ethics, the provisions of the "Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive" are acted upon, and in addition to this, publication ethics published by the Publication Ethics Board (COPE) as open access in ethical duties and responsibilities principles are taken into account.

The general principles adopted for the editors, referees and authors within the framework of these principles are stated below.



  1. Editors, when decide to publish the articles, consider that the articles are original and contribute to the scientific literature.
  2. Editors, while making positive or negative decisions about the articles, take into consideration the original value of the articles, their contribution to the field, the validity and reliability of the research method, the clarity of the expression, and the purpose and scope of the journal.
  3. Editors search for a wide range of referee list and constantly updated.
  4. Editors take necessary precautions against unsuitable and non-scientific evaluations.
  5. Editors ensure that journal publication processes are operated in accordance with publication policies and guidelines.
  6. Editors display a consistent attitude towards all kinds of hate crimes in their articles.
  7. Editors care about documenting the explicit consent of the participants of the article, take into account whether have the ethics committee approval of the participants of the article, -when necessary- plagiarism report, permission for experimental researches.



  1. Each referee agrees to evaluate only articles related to his/her field of expertise.
  2. Reviewers should not contact authors directly; necessary contacts are made through the editors.
  3. The referees should follow an impartial and objective way, and the authors' ethnic origin, religious beliefs, political attitudes, gender differences and commercial concerns should not affect the impartiality of the evaluation. Reviewers are far from any conflict of interest.
  4. The referees complete the article evaluation process within the time scheduled.
  5. The referees make the evaluation in accordance with academic etiquette, in a constructive language, and avoid personal comments containing insults and hostility.



  1. The authors declare the accuracy of any information they provide during the application process, and do not make any misleading, incorrect or incomplete statements.
  2. Authors should not simultaneously submit their submitted work to another journal. The whole stud or part or data in question must not have been published in another journal.
  3. All kinds of information, documents and changes related to the article requested from the authors by the journal editorial are requested to be sent via the system within 15 days.
  4. If the studies they applied for include a research that requires an "Ethics Committee Approval Certificate", the authors should have obtained the relevant document before starting the research and submitted it to the journal management during the article application.
  5. Authors should be careful about possible plagiarism. Authors should not present someone else's article as their own, they should definitely include the resources they used in the bibliography section and should give appropriate references to these resources in the text. On the other hand, authors should not refer to sources they have not used in their studies or should not include them in the bibliography.
  6. Authors should act in accordance with the citation/citing rules if they include their own work (including thesis) that has been published elsewhere before.
  7. Authors should avoid “slicing”. Slicing is defined in the YÖK Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive as “presenting the results of a research as separate works in the evaluations of associate professorship exams and academic promotions by inappropriately dividing the results of the research into parts and making multiple publications without citing each other”.