Guides

Author's Guide

Duties and Responsibilities of Authors

Authorship and Contribution
Authorship should be limited to those who made significant contributions to the conception, design, conduct or interpretation of the study. All significant contributors should be listed as co-authors. If there were minor contributors to the study, e.g. language editing, they should be acknowledged in the acknowledgments section. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to its submission for publication. Authors are expected to carefully review the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and to provide the final author list at the time of original submission. Only in exceptional circumstances will the editor consider the addition, deletion or rearrangement of authors after the manuscript has been submitted. All authors must agree to any such addition, deletion or reorganization. Authors take joint responsibility for the work.

Author Change Requests
Addition, deletion or rearrangement of author names in the author list will only be processed before the manuscript is accepted. Authors are required to carefully review the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the final author list at the time of original submission.

Article Writing
Authors of original research papers should address the topic in an original way and with an objective discussion. The paper should include sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly false statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Authenticity
The author must ensure that the article is original, has not been previously published elsewhere, and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in another language.

Using Original Sources and Citation
Authors should ensure that they are writing entirely original work and, if they have used the work or words of others, that it is properly cited. Privately obtained information, such as in conversations, correspondence or discussions with third parties, should not be used without the express written permission of the source.

Data Access and Preservation
Authors may be asked to provide research data supporting their articles for editorial review and/or to comply with the journal's open data requirements. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if possible, and to retain such data for a reasonable period after publication. The journal recommends uploading research data to TUBITAK's Aperta Portal.

Multiple and Simultaneous Publication
An author should not publish the same research article in more than one journal. It is unethical to submit the same article to more than one journal at the same time. An author should not submit a previously published article for consideration in another journal, except in the form of an abstract.

Publication of Studies Based on Surveys and Interviews
For research in all disciplines that require ethics committee approval (ethics committee approval must be obtained, this approval must be stated and documented in the article. In researches requiring ethics committee approval, information about the approval (name of the committee, date and number) should be included in the method section, as well as on one of the first/last pages of the article; in case reports, information on the signing of the informed consent form should be included in the article.

Conflict of Interest
Any financial or other interest that may cause the person to be conflicted in his/her work, significantly impair his/her objectivity, or provide an unfair advantage in favor of any person or organization. All sources of financial support received during the conduct of the research and preparation of the manuscript and the role of sponsors in the study should be disclosed. If there is no source of funding, this should also be indicated. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include consultancies, salaries, grants. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

Error Reporting
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, he/she should notify the journal immediately. It is also the author's obligation to cooperate in withdrawing or correcting the manuscript if deemed necessary by the editor. If the editor or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains errors, it is the author's obligation to cooperate with the editor, including informing the editor.

Image Integrity
It is not acceptable to enhance, darken, move, remove or add a specific feature in an image. Authors must adhere to the policy for graphic images implemented by the journal.

 

Editor's Guide

Selection of Editors
Editors are selected from among experts who have a PhD degree and have publications in accordance with the scope of the journal.

Duties and Responsibilities of the Editors
Coordinate the Referee Process
The editor should ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial and timely. Research articles should be reviewed by at least two external reviewers, and the editor should seek additional feedback when necessary.

Identification of Reviewers
The Editor will select reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field, taking into account the need for appropriate, inclusive and diverse representation. The Editor will follow best practices to avoid the selection of fraudulent reviewers.

Protecting Confidentiality
The editor must maintain the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers, unless otherwise agreed with the authors and reviewers concerned. In exceptional circumstances and in consultation with the publisher, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals where the editor deems it necessary to investigate suspected research misconduct. The editor must protect the identity of reviewers. Information contained in a submitted manuscript should not be used in the editor's own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained during the refereeing process should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal gain.

Neutrality
The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors.

Investigation of Allegations
An editor who finds convincing evidence of ethical violations should contact the Editorial Board and the Publisher to have the manuscript corrected, retracted, or otherwise amended.

Conflict of Interest
The editor should not be involved in decisions about manuscripts written by him/herself or by family members. Furthermore, such a paper should be subject to all the usual procedures of the journal. The editor should follow the COPE guidelines on disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.

Publication Decision
The Editor is responsible for reviewing the referee reports and deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. The editor must comply with the policies set by the Editorial Board.

Request for Citation to the Journal
The editor should not attempt to influence the ranking of the journal by artificially increasing any journal metric. The editor will not request that articles from his/her journal or any other journal be cited, except for scientific reasons.

Correction, Withdrawal, Publication of an Expression of Concern
Editors may consider publishing a correction if minor errors are identified in the published article that do not affect the findings, interpretations and conclusions. Editors should consider retracting the manuscript if there are major errors/violations that invalidate the findings and conclusions. Editors should consider issuing a statement of concern if there is evidence that the findings are unreliable and that the authors' institutions have not investigated the incident, or if the possible investigation seems unfair or inconclusive, if there is a possibility of research or publication misconduct by the authors. COPE guidelines are followed regarding correction, retraction or expression of concern.

Referee Guide

Below is the article review process, advice on how to become a reviewer and how to write a good review. Our journal adopts a double blind reviewing model.

Selection of Reviewers
Referees are selected from among experts who hold a PhD degree and have publications in the field of science to which the article relates. The information of experts from Turkish universities can be accessed from YÖK Academic website and the information of experts from abroad can be accessed from Publons.

Duties and Responsibilities of Referees
1) Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias and take this into account when reviewing an article. The reviewer should clearly articulate the considerations that support their decision.
2) Contribution to Editorial Decision: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and provides the author with the opportunity to improve the manuscript. In this respect, a reviewer who feels inadequate in reviewing an article or who feels that he/she cannot complete the review in a short time should not accept the invitation to review.
3) Confidentiality: All manuscripts received by the journal for review must be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share reviews or information about the manuscript with anyone or communicate directly with the authors. Information contained in the manuscript should not be used by a reviewer in his/her own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
4) Sensitivity to the Ethical Conduct of Research and Publication: Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical issues in the manuscript and report them to the editor.
5) Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript with potential conflicts of interest arising from their relationship with the authors or the institutions with which the manuscript is affiliated.
6) Referee Citation Request: If a referee suggests that an author include citations to the referee's (or their collaborators') work, this should be for genuine scientific reasons and not to increase the number of citations or the visibility of the referee's work. See also Code of Ethics for Reviewers

Conducting a Review
Referees' evaluations should be objective. During the review process, reviewers are expected to consider the following points.
• Does the article contain new and important information?
• Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?
• Is the methodology described in a coherent and understandable way?
• Are the interpretations and conclusions supported by the findings?
• Are adequate references given to other studies in the field?
• Is the language quality adequate?
• Do the abstract/abstract/keywords/keywords accurately reflect the content of the article?

Referee Process Principles

Evaluation Principles
1) Manuscripts that have not been previously published or are not currently under review for publication in another journal and approved by each author are accepted for evaluation.
2) Submitted articles are scanned for plagiarism using iThencitace, Turnitin, plihal.net software.
3) Journal of Near East University Faculty of Theology conducts a double blind review process. All manuscripts will first be evaluated by the editor for suitability to the journal. Articles deemed appropriate are sent to at least two independent expert referees to evaluate the scientific quality of the article.
4) The Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts independently of the ethnic origin, gender, nationality, religious beliefs and political philosophy of the authors. He/she ensures that the manuscripts submitted for publication undergo a fair double blind peer review.
5) The editor-in-chief does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors and referees.
6) The editor is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. The editor's decision is final.
7) Editors are not involved in decisions about manuscripts written by themselves or by family members or colleagues, or that relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Any such submission is subject to all of the journal's usual procedures.

Referee Process Principles for the Work of the Editorial Staff
Editorial and analysis articles written by the editors of Journal of Near East University Faculty of Theology do not undergo external refereeing. Original research articles are sent to at least two external referees as blind referees. During this period, the roles of those editors are suspended.

Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Scanning
The manuscript is reviewed by the editor for compliance with the journal's publication principles, academic writing rules and the Isnad Citation System, and is scanned for plagiarism using iThencitace, Turnitin, plagiarism.net programmes. The preliminary review is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Authors should ensure that their work is original, and if authors have used the work and/or words of others, they should be properly cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the quality of the reported work should also be cited. Plagiarism constitutes all forms of unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. The similarity report should be obtained from similarity programmes provided by universities such as iThencitace, Turnitin, plihal.net and uploaded to the system by the author at the time of manuscript submission. The similarity rate of the article should be at most 20%; the similarity rate between another work and the author's own work should be at most 2%; for studies produced from open access master's and doctoral theses, the similarity rate with the author's own thesis should be at most 5%.

Citation / Indirect Citation: If a citation is made to an opinion, discussion or determination in a source and the cited opinion is put on the line with the citing researcher's own words, a footnote sign (1) must be placed at the end of the sentence. If the reference is to a certain page or page range of the work, the page number should be given. If there is a reference to the whole work, in other words, if there is a reference to a dimension that requires the reader to examine the whole work, the source should be indicated in the footnote after the phrase "bk. on this subject", "bk. about this opinion", "bk. about this discussion" or just "bk.".

Quotation/Iquotation: If the relevant part of the source is taken exactly as it is, without touching the point and comma, the quoted part is "given in double quotation marks" and the source is indicated by giving the footnote number1 at the end. Quotations that exist in the directly quoted text are written using 'single quotation marks'. If the directly quoted part is longer than three lines (more than forty words), it is shown in a separate paragraph. In order to distinguish long quotations from the main text, it should be preferred to write in a font size one smaller than the normal text size and to indent the entire paragraph from the left at the beginning of the line. In direct quotations, some words, sentences and paragraphs may be omitted, provided that they do not change the meaning. Ellipses (...) are placed in place of the omitted parts. It is not correct to write the part quoted verbatim from a source without enclosing it in "double quotation marks" and to be contented with just writing the source at the end. If these rules are not followed, the author may be accused of violation of publication ethics (Plagiarism).

Field Editor Review
The manuscript that passes the Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Scanning stage is examined by the relevant field editor in terms of problematic and academic language and style. This review is completed in maximum 15 days.

Referee Process (Academic Evaluation)
After being reviewed by the field editor, the manuscript is submitted to the evaluation of at least two external referees who have a doctoral thesis, book or article on the subject. The referee process is carried out in confidentiality within the framework of double blind refereeing. The referee is requested to state his/her opinion and opinion on the manuscript either on the text or justify it with an explanation of at least 150 words on the online referee form. If the author disagrees with the referee's opinion, he/she is given the right to object and defend his/her views. The field editor ensures mutual communication between the author and the referee while maintaining confidentiality. If both referee reports are favourable, the manuscript is submitted to the Editorial Board with a proposal for publication. If one of the two referees has a negative opinion, the manuscript is sent to a third referee. Studies can be published with the positive decision of at least two referees. The publication of book and symposium reviews and doctoral thesis abstracts is decided after the evaluation of at least two internal referees (relevant field editors and/or members of the editorial board).

Proofreading Phase
If the referees request corrections to be made in the text they have reviewed, the relevant reports are sent to the author and the author is asked to correct his/her work. The author makes the corrections in the Word program with the "Track Changes" feature turned on or indicates the changes in the text in red. Submits the corrected text to the field editor.

Field Editor Control
The field editor checks whether the author has made the requested corrections to the text.

Referee Check
The reviewer checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.

Turkish Language Check
The manuscripts that pass through the referee process are reviewed by the Turkish Language Editor and the Editor-in-Chief, and if necessary, the author is asked to make corrections. The review process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

English Language Control
The manuscripts that pass the Turkish language control are examined by the English Language Editor and, if necessary, corrections are requested from the author. The English language editor's control process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Publication Process
After undergoing technical, academic and linguistic reviews, the articles are typeset and edited, made ready for publication and published in the next issue. 

Data Submission to National and International Indexes
The data of the published issue is sent to the relevant indexes within 15 days.