ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
Our journal adheres to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) regarding publishing ethics and academic integrity. Within this framework, all academic works published in our journal are expected to comply with high ethical standards.
Actions Contrary to Scientific Research and Publication Ethics
• Plagiarism: Presenting the original ideas, methods, data or works of others as one's own, in whole or in part, without proper scientific attribution.
• Fabrication: Using data that does not actually exist or has been falsified in scientific research.
• Distortion: Altering research records or obtained data, presenting equipment or materials not used in the research as if they had been used, altering or shaping research results in line with the interests of the individuals and organisations providing support,
• Duplicate publication: Presenting duplicate publications as separate publications for academic appointment and promotion,
• Salami slicing: Dividing the results of a research study into parts in an inappropriate manner that compromises the integrity of the research and publishing them as multiple publications, presenting these publications as separate publications for academic appointments and promotions,
• Unfair authorship: Including individuals who have not made an active contribution among the authors or excluding those who have, changing the author order in an unjustified and inappropriate manner, removing the names of those who have made an active contribution from subsequent editions, or including one's name among the authors by using one's influence despite not having made an active contribution,
Other types of ethical violations include:
a) Failing to acknowledge the individuals, institutions, or organisations that provided support for research resulting in publications,
b) Using theses or studies that have not yet been submitted or defended as sources without the owner's permission,
c) Sharing information contained in a work assigned for review with others prior to publication without the express permission of the author,
ç) Using resources, premises, facilities, and equipment provided or allocated for scientific research for purposes other than those intended,
d) Making unfounded, inappropriate, and deliberate allegations of ethical violations,
e) Publishing data obtained without the explicit consent of participants in surveys and attitude studies conducted as part of scientific work, or without the additional permission of the institution if the research is to be conducted at an institution,
f) Failure to comply with the obligation to inform and warn those concerned about possible harmful practices related to scientific research conducted by researchers and officials,
g) In scientific studies, failing to use data and information obtained from other persons and institutions to the extent and in the manner permitted, failing to respect the confidentiality of this information and failing to ensure its protection,
h) Making false or misleading statements regarding scientific research and publications in academic appointments and promotions,
Principles of Research Ethics
• In the stages of designing research processes, establishing the methodological framework, conducting ethical evaluations, and carrying out research activities, scientific integrity, a holistic approach, quality, and transparency must serve as the foundation. All stages of the research must be systematically documented and made available for review when necessary.
• The research team and individuals participating in the study must be informed in a clear, understandable, and comprehensive manner about the research’s purpose, scope, methodology, data collection techniques, analysis processes, and the intended uses of the findings. Participants must be clearly informed about the responsibilities, potential risks, and expected contributions associated with participating in the research.
• The confidentiality of all data obtained from participants must be protected; necessary technical and administrative measures must be taken to prevent the disclosure of identifying information. The principles of anonymity and privacy must be upheld, and data processing procedures must comply with applicable data protection legislation. The research design must be structured to safeguard individuals’ autonomy, human dignity, and fundamental rights.
• Participation in research must be entirely voluntary; participants must not be subjected to any form of pressure, coercion, or expectation of benefit. It must be clearly stated that participants have the right to withdraw from the study at any stage without facing any penalties or adverse consequences.
• All necessary measures must be taken to ensure that participants do not suffer physical, psychological, social, or economic harm during the research process. In this context, a risk assessment must be conducted in advance, and the research must be planned to minimize potential harm. In particular, when children, individuals with disabilities, or those with limited decision-making capacity are involved, consent must be obtained from legal guardians, and approval from the relevant ethics committees must be secured.
• Researchers are obligated to maintain their scientific independence. Any potential conflicts of interest that could influence the study design, data analysis, or results must be disclosed in a clear and transparent manner. Additionally, financial support, sponsorships, and institutional relationships related to the research must be clearly stated.
• If the research is conducted within a public institution, private organization, or university, the necessary official permissions must be obtained from the relevant institutions; where deemed necessary, the process must be conducted within this framework after obtaining ethics committee approval.
Ethics Committee Approval
For all research conducted in all scientific fields requiring ethics committee approval, an ethics committee decision must have been obtained, and information regarding the decision must be stated in the article text. Our journal does not consider studies that do not have an ethics committee decision. In studies requiring ethics committee permission, information about the permission (committee name, date and number) should be included in the article text. In line with the decisions taken by Ulakbim TR Index, Ethics Committee Permission is required for studies to be published from 2020 onwards.
Research Requiring Ethics Committee Approval
In our journal, research requiring ethics committee approval includes the following studies:
• All research conducted using qualitative or quantitative approaches involving data collection from participants through methods such as surveys, interviews, focus group studies, observation, and interview techniques,
• Retrospective studies within the framework of the Personal Data Protection Law.
For such studies to be considered for evaluation, the relevant ethics committee approvals must have been obtained and these approvals must be clearly stated in the article text.
Plagiarism Check
Studies submitted to our journal for publication are screened using the İthenticate and Turnitin programmes to prevent plagiarism. The acceptable similarity rate for studies submitted to our journal is a maximum of 20%. Studies exceeding this rate are returned to the authors during the preliminary review stage.
If plagiarism is detected in a manuscript submitted to or published in our journal, our journal acts in accordance with COPE principles (Plagiarism in a submitted manuscript - Plagiarism in a published article).
Relationships with the Journal Owner and Publisher
The relationship between the editor and the publisher is based on the principle of editorial independence. According to the written agreement between the editor and the publisher, all decisions made by the editor are independent of the publisher and journal owner.
Correction, Retraction, Expression of Concern
Editors may consider publishing a correction if minor errors are identified in a published article that do not affect the findings, interpretations, or conclusions. Editors should consider retracting an article when major errors/violations invalidate the findings and conclusions. COPE guidelines are taken into account regarding corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern.
Protection of Intellectual Property Rights
Our journal is responsible for protecting the intellectual property rights of all published articles and defending the rights of the journal and author(s) in the event of possible infringements.
Protection of Participants' Personal Data
All personal data submitted to our journal is protected in accordance with legal regulations and ethical rules.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
The use of artificial intelligence in studies submitted to our journal is acceptable in processes that do not affect the originality of the article, such as literature review or language control. However, the use of artificial intelligence must be carried out within the framework of ethical rules and must not be used for unethical purposes such as fabricating data or manipulation.
For studies involving the use of artificial intelligence, it is mandatory to inform our journal of this situation during the article submission stage. All responsibility regarding the use of artificial intelligence lies with the authors themselves.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF STAKEHOLDERS
1-EDITOR RESPONSIBILITIES
Fair Assessment and Impartiality
The editors evaluate manuscripts submitted to the Journal solely on the basis of basic academic criteria such as scientific quality, importance, originality and suitability to the content of the Journal, without taking into account the race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality, religious belief, political affiliation or institutional affiliation of the author(s). Editorial arrangements or decisions regarding the publication of an article are not determined by the policies of other organisations or governments other than the Journal itself. The Editorial Board has full authority over the determination and publication of the content of the Journal. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are subjected to a refereeing process if deemed appropriate by the editor and/or the editorial board of the journal. Rejection of manuscripts that do not meet the basic academic qualifications and journal content is made with a reasoned decision. No manuscript whose referee process is completed negatively or which does not enter the referee process cannot be published in the Journal.
Confidentiality
The editor, associate editors, and others in the journal will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial advisors, and the publisher.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
The editor, associate editors and members of the editorial board will not use unpublished information, ideas and hypotheses contained in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the express written permission of the authors. The editors will keep the information and/or ideas obtained during the review of the manuscript confidential and will not utilise them for personal gain. In cases where there is a possibility of conflicts of interest arising from competition, co-operation or other relationships/connections with any author, company or institution related to the articles, the editors/assistant editors will not evaluate the articles; they will request another member of the editorial board to manage the processes related to the article.
In the event that conflicts of interest and relationships of interest are revealed after the publication of the article, corrections will be published. The publication in question will be removed from the digital format of the Journal and the article index.
Publication Decisions
The Editor/Assistant Editors are responsible for ensuring that all submitted manuscripts are evaluated for publication and reviewed by at least 2 referees who are experts in their fields. In co-operation with the Editorial Board, the Editorial Board evaluates the originality, validity and importance of the manuscripts submitted to the Journal for researchers and readers; decides which of the manuscripts will be published on the basis of referee comments and applicable legal requirements in relation to defamation, copyright infringement, plagiarism, etc. They can exchange ideas with each other, the editorial board or the referees while making decisions about the articles. They can guide the authors on issues such as expression disorders and spelling mistakes in the article. Likewise, it can also warn about issues related to working method, scientific and logical errors, and problems related to content.
Participation and Co-operation in Investigations
The editors (together with publishers and/or organisations) will take corresponding action when ethical concerns arise in relation to a submitted manuscript and published manuscript. Any reported unethical publishing behaviour will be investigated, even if it occurs years after publication. If problems related to ethical violations are detected as a result of the investigation, the article in question will be corrected or withdrawn; an information note will be added in subsequent issues for published articles, and articles with proven problems related to ethical violations will be removed from the digital format and index of the journal.
2-REFEREE RESPONSIBILITIES
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review helps editors to make editorial decisions. It can also help authors improve their manuscripts through editorial communication. Peer review is an essential component of formal academic communication and is at the heart of scholarly work.
Promptness
Reviewers who feel incapable of evaluating the research topic of a manuscript and feel that it would be impossible to review it quickly should inform the editors immediately and decline the invitation to review the manuscript so that other reviewers can be contacted.
Confidentiality
All articles accepted for consideration are confidential documents and should be treated as such. They should not be shared or discussed with others unless authorised to do so by the editors, who may only share them under exceptional and special circumstances. This also applies to those who decline an invitation to referee.
Objectivity Standards
The reviews should be conducted objectively and the authors' ideas about the article should be clearly expressed with supporting arguments in order to improve their articles. Criticisms regarding the individual characteristics and personal opinions of the authors are not considered appropriate. In order to ensure standardisation in the evaluation process, authors are required to fill in the Referee Panel Report in the documents section under the Article Submission tab and upload it to the process files section via journipark after the evaluation.
Source Statement
Reviewers should identify published work relevant to the manuscript but not cited by the authors. It should be indicated whether any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument reported in previous publications has been cited. The reviewer should inform the editors of any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) about which he/she has knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Invited referees who have a conflict of interest arising from competition, co-operation or any other kind of relationship or connection with any author, company or institution connected with the article or the work described in the article should immediately inform the editors by declaring the conflict of interest and decline the invitation to review so that they can contact alternative referees.
An author whose article has been published in an issue of the Turkish Journal of Archaeology and Ethnography cannot serve as a referee in the same issue. Similarly, an author's article cannot be published in the issue in which he/she served as a referee. The article of an author who submits an article to an issue in which he/she serves as a referee is published in the next issue.
2.b.REVIEWER INFORMATION AND EVALUATION GUIDE
Our journal meticulously applies TR Dizin principles and international publication ethics principles (COPE - Committee on Publication Ethics). The peer review process is the
guarantee of the scientific quality and originality of our journal. This guide has been prepared to guide you in filling out the criteria in our journals Reviewer Evaluation Form in an objective, fair, and compliant manner with TR Dizin standards.
1. GENERAL EVALUATION PRINCIPLES AND ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Double-Blind Peer Review and Confidentiality: A double-blind peer review system is implemented in our journal. The manuscripts you review are confidential documents. Data, ideas, and documents contained in the study cannot be used, cited, or shared with others by the reviewer in any way before publication.
Impartiality and Objectivity: Article evaluations should be conducted based on objective criteria, entirely within the framework of scientific merit, regardless of race, gender, religious belief, political view, or institutional affiliation. Reviewer critiques should be presented in a constructive, academic, and polite style; personal statements should be avoided.
Conflict of Interest: If any conflict of interest or partnership (close kinship, working in the same institution, participating in a joint project, etc.) is identified with the author/authors of the article requested to be evaluated, the situation must be reported to the Area Editor without delay, and the review invitation must be rejected.
Detection of Ethical Violation (TR Dizin Requirement): If plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, duplicate publication, salami slicing, or lack of documents in studies requiring ethics committee
permission is noticed in the text, the Editorial Board must be informed immediately.
2. FILLING OUT THE EVALUATION CRITERIA (1-5 SCORE SCALE) FAIRLY
The 11 items in our Reviewer Evaluation Form are scored between 1 and 5 (1=No, 3=Partially, 5=Yes). Objectivity and consistency are essential when scoring. The contents of the items in the form and the points to be considered are as follows:
Evaluation Criterion Reviewer Examination Guide and Fairness Principle
1. Is it an original study related to its field?
It should be evaluated whether the study presents a new finding, a new cataloging, a new epigraphic/architectural
interpretation, or a theoretical/methodological contribution to archaeology, ethnography, or related sub- disciplines. Low scores should be given to studies that merely repeat classic information.
2. Does it comply with scientific criteria?
The methodology, data collection, and analysis techniques of the research should be examined in terms of compliance with scientific standards and academic research methods.
3. Is the title compatible with the content?
It should be checked whether the title fully and clearly reflects the scope, limits, material, or period examined in the study.
4. Is the abstract compatible with the content?
It should be checked whether the abstract presents the purpose, method, main findings, and conclusion of the research in a concise manner and whether it
directly matches the text content.
5. Is the selection of keywords appropriate and sufficient?
It should be examined whether the selected words are capable of representing the subject, geography, period, or method of the study and are suitable for indexing.
6. Does it comply with grammar and spelling rules?
It should be checked whether the text has spelling, punctuation, and terminological accuracy. Correct use of terms is of vital importance in archaeological/ethnographic research.
7. Is it coherent, consistent, and sufficient in terms of structure and expression?
The logical flow between the introduction, method, findings, discussion, and conclusion sections, the hierarchy of section headings, and the in-text structure should be evaluated.
8. Is the language fluent, simple, and understandable?
It should be considered whether the expression is free from unnecessarily verbose statements, clear, understandable, and appropriate for an academic style.
9. Have findings/results suitable for the research purpose been reached?
It should be questioned whether the problematics or questions stated in the introduction section are correctly answered within the framework of the obtained data.
10. Do the proposed interpretations and reached results contribute to the field?
It should be scored whether the authors own interpretations reach a scientific conclusion by comparing them with the literature and the innovation or insight it brings to the
fields literature.
11. Are the references used sufficient and up-to-date in terms of quality and quantity?
It should be audited whether essential references related to the subject, up-to-date national and international publications (especially APA and field-indexed sources) are used at a sufficient level.
3. OBLIGATION TO DETAIL REJECTION, ACCEPTANCE, AND REVISION GROUNDS (TR DIZIN CRITERION)
In accordance with TR Dizin and our journal publication policy, superficial and unjustified decisions in reviewer evaluations are not accepted. It is mandatory that the FINAL decisions on the form be detailed according to the following explanations:
ATTENTION (Grounds Detailing Rule):
When one of the options “Can be published after some revisions” “Cannot be published” is checked in the CONCLUSION section of the form, it is mandatory to write a concrete, explanatory, and justified evaluation text consisting of at least a few paragraphs in the explanation area located in the lower section.
A. Can be Published as Is Decision:
It should be preferred if the scientific methodology, language, bibliography, and contribution to the field of the study are at an excellent level. High scores on the reviewer form (predominantly 4 and 5) are expected.
B. Can be Published After Some Revisions Decision:
Checked in cases where the study has publication potential but requires textual, methodological, or bibliography-based revisions. Our reviewer must additionally select one of the following two options:
• I Want to See the Revisions: The sufficiency of the major/minor revisions to be made by the author is re-checked by the reviewer.
• I Do Not Want to See the Revisions: The requested revisions are of a minor nature, and the discretion is left to the Editorial Board and the Area Editor.
Mandatory Principle: The reviewer must explain the points requested to be revised item by item, specifying the page, paragraph, and line numbers.
C. Cannot be Published (Rejection) Decision:
Given for studies that lack scientific depth, have no original value, are methodologically flawed, or contain ethical violations. Simply checking the "Cannot be published" box and leaving the explanation area blank is considered a violation for our journal in TR Dizin audits. The reviewer must concretely state why the study cannot be published with scientific grounds (for example: Literature review is incomplete; Method is scientifically flawed; Findings do not support the hypothesis;, etc.).
4. NOTES TO BE SENT TO THE AUTHOR AND IN-TEXT MARKINGS
Our reviewers can convey their evaluation comments in two ways:
Via the Evaluation Form: Suggestions, deficiencies, and constructive criticisms aimed at the author should be added to the explanation section at the bottom of the form.
By Marking on the Text: If our reviewers wish, they can specify their revisions using the;Add
Comment or Track Changes; feature on the article Word text sent to them and upload this file to the system.
Note: In comments added to the text, it must be ensured that personal information that would reveal the reviewers identity (Word username, etc.) is hidden.
5. SIGNING AND SUBMISSION OF THE FORM
After the evaluation is completed, the Title and Name, Signature (electronic/digital or wet signature), and Date fields located at the bottom of the Form must be filled in completely and submitted to the Editorial Office via DergiPark / Journal Management System.
3-AUTHOR RESPONSIBILITIES
Writing Standards
• In order to avoid loss of time and energy on both sides, authors should submit their manuscripts to the Turkish Journal of Archaeology and Ethnography in accordance with the content, purpose, scope, editorial principles and editorial rules of the journal. They should provide an accurate description of their work, followed by an objective examination of the significance of the work. The article should contain sufficient details and references, and should provide guidance for other researchers who will conduct similar studies. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive, and editorial opinions or viewpoints should be clearly written in the same way. Manuscripts whose content is not produced by the author, which contain fabricated and deliberately false statements are unethical and unacceptable.
• In case of a ‘revision required’ decision by the referee in the first evaluation, authors should systematically, thoroughly and timely respond to the referees' comments and resubmit their manuscripts to the journal by the deadline.
• Authors are also obliged to respond systematically and in a timely manner to requests from the editors during the editorial process and to suggestions for corrections made by the proofreader at the layout stage. Articles of authors who do not fulfil these obligations will be rejected.
Data Access and Storage
• During the editorial and peer review process, authors may be asked for raw data, disclosures, ethical approval, and copyright permissions. Authors are obliged to co-operate by responding promptly to these requests and should be prepared to make such data publicly available. Authors should ensure that such data are accessible to other researchers for at least 10 years after publication (preferably through an institutional or subject-based repository or other data centre), provided that the confidentiality of participants can be protected and that legal rights to proprietary data do not prevent their release. Legal rights to proprietary data do not preclude their disclosure.
• Withdrawal of manuscripts that are still in the refereeing process from the publication process is considered unethical and unethical publishing behaviour. In such cases, the relevant author(s) will not be accepted for publication in the Turkish Journal of Archaeology and Ethnography for 5 years.
Originality and Plagiarism
• Authors should ensure that they have produced and presented entirely original work, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, they should ensure that these are properly cited. Publications that are influential in determining the quality of the work discussed in the article should also be cited.
• Plagiarism can take different forms, ranging from an author introducing someone else's article as his/her own, to copying or paraphrasing important parts of someone else's article without attribution, to claiming that the results of research conducted by others are his/her own. All forms of plagiarism constitute unethical publishing behaviour and are unacceptable. Plagiarism screening is carried out prior to the referee process and a maximum of 20% similarity rate is allowed, except for the bibliography, and articles exceeding this rate are not accepted to the Journal. If scientific misconduct and plagiarism are detected after the publication of the article, the publication in question will be removed from the digital format of the Journal and the article index. The articles of the author/authors who commit such misconduct will not be accepted to the Turkish Journal of Archaeology and Ethnography for 5 years.
• Authors may submit only original works to the Journal and must properly cite and reference the quotations made in the content of the work. Although articles derived from master's and doctoral theses are included in the Journal, it is expected that these chapters will not be identical. The first page of the articles prepared from such theses and the author tag should indicate which thesis the article is derived from. It is also unacceptable for an author's article to contain a copy of part of a book or article of his/her own. In studies derived from graduate theses, the author responsible for the work and the author with the highest contribution rate must be the author of the thesis.
• The editors and editorial board members of the Turkish Journal of Archaeology and Ethnography are not responsible for the opinions expressed in the articles published in the Journal and the content of the articles. Issues related to the originality of the article and scientific errors in the article are the responsibility of the authors.
Multiple, duplicate, redundant or simultaneous send/publish
Articles dealing with essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Therefore, authors should not submit an identical or substantially similar article that has already been published in another journal for consideration. Simultaneous submission of an article to more than one journal is also unethical and unacceptable. At the same time, a study published in the Turkish Journal of Archaeology and Ethnography should not be published in another journal in the future. In case such misuse is detected, any work of the author will not be accepted to the Journal for 5 years. The publication rights of the author(s) in our journal are protected under CC-BY-NC-ND.
Ownership of the Article
Since they must take responsibility for the content, individuals who fulfil the following criteria should be listed as authors on the manuscript:
1. made significant contributions to the conception, conception, execution, data collection or analysis or interpretation of the study,
2. Those who prepare the draft or critically revise, make general assessments, hypothesise and analyse the ideas given in the content,
3. Those who have seen and approved the final version of the article and accepted its submission for publication.
People who contribute to the article in terms of technical assistance, writing, editing, etc. but do not meet the criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors. It is at the discretion of the author to mention them in the ‘Acknowledgements’ section. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors whose criteria are presented above are included in the list of authors and that those who do not qualify as authors are not listed as authors, and should verify that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Authors should disclose any conflicts of interest, if any, at the earliest possible stage, usually at the time of submission, by submitting a disclosure form and attaching a statement to the manuscript that could be interpreted as influencing the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial relationships, such as remuneration, educational grants, membership of funds, employment, consultancy, share ownership and other equity interests, as well as non-financial relationships, such as personal or professional affinities and connections. All sources of financial support received during the study should be disclosed, including, if possible, the grant number or other reference numbers, if available.
Identification of Sources
Authors should ensure that they properly cite the work of others and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the quality of the work. Information obtained through private means, such as interviews, correspondence and discussions with third parties, should not be used or reported without the express, written permission of the source.
Dangerous Situations and Human or Animal Subjects
• If the study was conducted with chemicals, procedures or equipment whose use may pose a hazard, the authors should clearly indicate this in the manuscript. If the study involves the use of animals or humans as subjects, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed and approvals obtained in accordance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines. The manuscript should include a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement that if human subjects were used, they were informed during the procedures. The privacy rights of human subjects should always be respected.
• If the articles submitted to the Turkish Archaeology and Ethnography journal are obtained by using humans and animals for experimental or scientific purposes, if clinical research has been conducted on them, the ‘Ethics Committee Permission Document’ in the journal documents section must be filled out and sent. The responsibility for the permissions related to the data collected through questionnaires, interview techniques, interviews belongs to the authors and the journal management cannot be blamed for the legal responsibilities that may arise in these matters.
• In studies requiring ethics committee permission, information about the permission (name of the committee, date and number) should be included on one of the first/last pages of the article; in case presentations, information about the signature of the informed consent form should be included in the article.
Errors in Published Works
Authors are obliged to inform the editors of the journal immediately if they detect errors in their own work and to co-operate in correcting or withdrawing their manuscript. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, they may ask the author(s) to correct or withdraw the article. It is the authors' responsibility to provide evidence of the accuracy of the article to the journal editors. When authors notice a significant error during the publication process, they are obliged to report this error to the editor.
4-PUBLISHER RESPONSIBILITIES
Measures for Publications Abusing Ethical Principles
• In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in co-operation with the editors, carries out the necessary work to clarify the situation. In the event of scientific misconduct, plagiarism or fraudulent publication, the manuscript will be rejected or the authors will take the necessary measures to amend it. This may require the prompt publication of a true/false statement, clarification or, in the most serious cases, withdrawal of the manuscript. The publisher, in conjunction with the editors, will take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of manuscripts in which research misconduct has occurred and will under no circumstances encourage or knowingly permit such misconduct to occur.
• The Publisher does not discriminate on the basis of age, colour, religion, sect, disability, marital status, nationality, race, sex, genetic predisposition or carrier status or sexual orientation in its broadcast programmes, services and activities.
Participation and Co-operation in Investigations
The responsibility of the articles published in the journal belongs to the authors. The Turkish Journal of Archaeology and Ethnography will assist the relevant institutions and authorities in judicial and administrative investigations that may arise in cases of plagiarism and scientific misconduct and in cases of suspicions raised regarding the articles published in the Journal, by providing the information and documents in its possession upon request.
Ethical Violation Notifications
Readers can send an e-mail to taed@ktb.gov.tr if they notice a significant error or inaccuracy in an article published in our journal or if they have any complaints about the editorial content (plagiarism, duplicate articles, etc.).