Ethical Principles

Ethical Policy

Actual Sociology publishes based on the principles of scientific rigour, objective evaluation criteria and research ethics. Articles that the relevant editor deems appropriate in terms of contribution to scientific thought, methodological quality and analytical depth are submitted for peer review. Corrections and changes requested in the articles evaluated by referees who are experts in their fields are aimed at improving the article and making it more competent. Referee evaluations are justified and based on objective scientific criteria. For this reason, it is of great importance that authors, editors and referees agree on the common ethical attitudes required by the production of sociological knowledge.

Transferring Necessary Information
Authors submitting their original work to Actual Sociology should describe their research in detail and indicate the importance of their work. The article should accurately convey the data obtained and include enough details and references to allow others to repeat the study. Untruthful, deliberately distorted statements are contrary to research ethics and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Protection
Authors may be asked to cite the sources used in their manuscripts for corrections during the publication process, and authors must provide access to such sources in the event of such a request. All data relating to the manuscripts should be made available on request in the form of supplementary files or stored in an external channel; they should also be available upon request. However, it is in the authors' best interests to retain these sources and data for a period of time even after their article has been published.

Originality and Plagiarism
Authors must prove that their work is their own original work, and if they have used the work or quotations of others, they must cite and quote it properly. There are many forms of plagiarism, such as passing off someone else's work as one's own; rewriting key components of someone else's work (without attribution) in different words; passing off inferences made or reached by others as one's own. All forms of plagiarism are unethical behaviour and absolutely unacceptable. Turnitin programme is used for plagiarism control in our journal.

Multiple, Repeated and Simultaneous Broadcasting
Authors should not have their studies based on the same research published again after the first publication and the same study should not be published in more than one journal. Having the same study published more than once simultaneously is an unethical publishing behaviour and is absolutely unacceptable. Likewise, authors are also expected not to submit their previously published work to another journal for evaluation.

Description of References
The description of other works used in the article should be properly acknowledged. Proprietary information obtained from a conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties should not be used or transmitted without the written permission of the source. Proprietary information obtained from confidential services, such as official correspondence and applications, should not be used without the written authorisation of the authors of the studies that are internal to these services.

Conflicts of Interest
All authors are required to disclose any financial, personal, or other relationships or potential conflicts of interest with persons or organisations that may improperly influence or be perceived to influence their work within three years of starting their research.
The conflict in question may be actual or potential, so it is safest to make this clear to the journal editors. For all submissions, the Cover Page file should include a declaration of any relationships and affiliations that could be seen as a potential conflict of interest/disagreement, if any. The editorial board of Actual Sociology may use such information as a basis for editorial judgements and may publish such declarations if it considers them to be important for readers to evaluate the work in question. A decision may be taken not to publish the article on the basis of the conflict/separation.
Examples of potential conflicts of interest/disagreements that should be clearly stated include, but are not limited to, employment, consultancy, equity ownership, fees for services, notarisation, patent application and registration, grants or other sources of funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be registered at the earliest possible stage.

Financial Support and Resources
Articles may be the output of a project carried out with the financial or institutional support of a domestic or foreign, public or private institution or organisation. In such a case, the number of the project, if any, the institutions receiving support and all financial sources should be clearly indicated in the Cover Page file. Authors should indicate the role, if any, of the funding agency(ies) in the setting up of the study, in the collection and analysis of information and interpretation of data, in the writing of reports, and in the decision to submit the work for publication.

Key Errors in Published Studies
If authors notice a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they are obliged to notify the relevant editor or secretary of Actual Sociology without delay and to co-operate with the editor to correct or retract the work. If the editor or the editorial board becomes aware through third parties that the published work contains significant errors, it is the sole responsibility of the author to withdraw or correct the work immediately or to provide the editor with evidence of the accuracy of the original work.

Author Staff of the Study
The list of authors should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the conception, conception, production or translation of the work in question. These significant contributors should be listed as co-authors. Those who only helped in certain parts of the research project should be listed as contributors.
The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors are correctly acknowledged and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree that it should be submitted for publication.

Form of Reference
The format used by Actual Sociology for referencing is APA Style 7th Edition. In both the citations and the bibliography section, authors should follow the spelling rules and format specified in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, published by the American Psychological Association. The reference method is shown in detail with examples in the Spelling Rules section of the Notes to Contributors section.

Quotations
When quoted in the texts, make sure that the references are added to the relevant section. Citations made in the summarising section should be written in full text. It is not recommended to cite unpublished works and personal contacts in the references section, but it is fine to mention them in the text. If these references are still included in the section to which they belong, the standard referencing criteria of the journal should be followed and the date of publication section should be replaced with the headings "Unpublished studies" or "Personal links". The citation of any reference, just as in the press, implies that the citation is accepted and appropriate for publication.

Internet Link References
At a minimum, authors should provide the full link address of the internet link references they use and the time of the last access to that link. If known, information such as author names, dates, publication references, etc. should also be provided. Internet link references may be listed separately (e.g. immediately after the reference list) or added to the reference list.

References to a Special Case
References in the list (and citations in the text) to other articles with the same special case should be sure to include the word "this case".

Reference Format
Citations in texts should be as follows:

  • Single author: Author's name (in full to avoid any ambiguity) and year of publication,
  • Two authors: Full name of both authors and year of publication,
  • Three or more authors: The name of the primary author with the addition of "and others" and the year of publication. Citations can be direct or (also enclosed in brackets). Reference groups should be listed first alphabetically and then chronologically.

Examples
Book
Koytak, E. (2022). Transformation of the profession: Physicians and lawyers. Matbu Publications.

Article
Sunar, L. & Güneş, Ü. (2020). The development of socioeconomic inequalities and stratification research: A bibliometric analysis. Human & Society, 10(4), 505-555.

Book Chapter
Akin, M. H. (2021). The formation and various forms of conservatism in Turkey. In L. Sunar (Ed.), The Routledge International Handbook of Contemporary Muslim Socio-Political Thought (1st ed., pp. 75-87), Routledge.

Code of Ethics
Separate ethics committee approval must be obtained for research in all disciplines, including social sciences, and for clinical and experimental human and animal studies that require ethics committee approval, and this approval must be stated and documented in the article.

Authors should include a statement that Research and Publication Ethics are complied with in the articles.

Ethics Committee Permission
Researches requiring Ethics Committee Permission are as follows:

  • All kinds of research conducted with qualitative or quantitative approaches that require data collection from participants using survey, interview, focus group study, observation, experiment, interview techniques
  • Use of humans and animals (including materials/data) for experimental or other scientific purposes,
  • Clinical trials on humans,
  • Research on animals,
  • Retrospective studies in accordance with the law on the protection of personal data,
  • Stating that the "informed consent form" has been obtained in case presentations,
  • Obtaining and indicating permission from the owners for the use of scales, questionnaires, photographs belonging to others,
  • Stating that copyright regulations are complied with for the intellectual and artistic works used

Before 2020, retrospective ethics committee permission is not required for articles that used research data, produced from master's/doctoral studies (must be specified in the article), applied for publication to the journal in the previous year, accepted but not yet published. Non-university researchers should apply to the Ethics Committees in their regions.
For articles to be published in journals, it should be stated in the article whether ethics committee permission and/or legal/private permission is required. If it is necessary to obtain these permissions, it should be clearly presented from which institution, on which date and with which decision or number number the permission was obtained.
If the study requires the use of human and animal subjects, it should be declared that the study was carried out in accordance with international declarations, guidelines, etc.

Publication Code of Ethics
It should be indicated on the Cover Page whether ethics committee authorisation and/or legal/special permission is required for the articles to be published in the journal. If it is necessary to obtain these permissions, it should be clearly presented from which institution, on which date and with which decision or issue number the permission was obtained.

Duties of the Editors

  • Publication Decision
  • Neutrality
  • Confidentiality
  • Differences of Opinion and Declarations
  • Participation in Research Collaboration

Editors' Opinion Statement
Actual Sociology asks its editors to write a short statement about their views, which may be seen as potentially influencing their impartial judgement. Such transparency is an ethical obligation to authors and readers, and is an equal fulfilment of the requirement for a statement of opinion expected of authors, reviewers and reviewers. The editorial team is expected to distance themselves from decision-generating edits that could potentially lead to a difference of opinion.

Selection and Duties of the Persons to Conduct the Assessment
Actual Sociology's staff who evaluate the articles are selected among the experts of the subjects mentioned in the articles. They are selected for their objectivity and scientific knowledge. All reviewers are informed about what Actual Sociology expects from them. Each of them is asked to fill out an evaluation form and prepare a separate report if necessary. Persons who disagree with the subject matter of an article are not allowed to review it (e.g. people who have contributed to or collaborated with one of the authors, or who are unable to offer an objective opinion on the work, or who are employees or competitors of an organisation whose work is being reviewed, or who hold particular political or ideological views). These individuals should contact the editorial board before the manuscript is submitted to the review panel to indicate any potential conflict of interest.
Reviews are expected to be professional, honest, tactful, punctual and constructive.

The key elements required for a high quality evaluation are as follows. Reviewers;

  • Identify and comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the organisation and methodology of the manuscript.
  • Criticise accurately and constructively the author's skill in data handling (taking into account that data may be limited).
  • Identify its weaknesses and strengths as a written communication tool, regardless of its organisation, methodology, results and processing.
  • Express their opinion on whether the work has a content that may raise ethical concerns or whether it has low scientific standards.
  • Provide useful advice to the authors on how to improve the work.
  • Express criticism in a constructive and professional manner towards the author.
  • Provide the editor with an accurate perspective and context for making a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript (and/or revision).
  • They should identify works that have not been cited and use citations to indicate which elements of the work have already been cited. Reviewers should also report any striking similarities between the text under review and any work published in another journal or submitted to Actual Sociology.
  • They should not liaise directly with the author. In many cases, two experts will be consulted as referees, but their opinions may not necessarily be the same as the editor's final judgement on the article in question. Seeking advice from a referee, even partial advice, may give authors the wrong impression of the evaluation process.

Development of the Evaluation Process
The editors of Actual Sociology routinely review articles for quality. The grading of the quality of the review and other performance characteristics of the reviewers are reviewed periodically to ensure optimum efficiency. Performance measures, such as review completion time, should be utilised to review changes in procedures that contribute to the efficiency of the journal. Individual performances are kept confidentia

Privacy
The information and opinions obtained as a referee during the evaluation process are confidential and may not be used as an advantage in any way. The application is treated in strict confidence as a privileged communication.
The submission may not be taken or copied by the reviewers. Furthermore, reviewers may not share the manuscript with colleagues without the written permission of the editor.
Reviewers and editors may not make any professional or personal use of the data, interpretations, or subject matter (unless directly related to the review) or edit or comment on the manuscript prior to its publication without the specific permission of the authors.
In case of any disagreement/conflict of interest, reviewers should inform the editorial board.
Reviewers should inform the editor if they will not be able to review a manuscript or can only do so with some delay.
Reviewers should objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, provide clear, impartial and constructive criticism, and avoid personal criticism of the authors. There is no harm in the authors knowing/seeing the comments made by the referees. Therefore, the judgements of the reviewers should be clearly stated and supported so that the authors can understand the basis for the comments and judgements.
If reviewers suspect any ethical violations or plagiarism, they can easily report this to the editor. They should never disclose the situation to others unless they have been informed by Actual Sociology that they may do so.