Editorial Policies

Acknowledgment

Any individuals who have contributed to the article (e.g. general supervision, acquisition of funding, study design, data collection, data analysis, technical assistance, formatting-related writing assistance, scholarly discussions which significantly contributed to developing the article, etc), but who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed by name and affiliation in an ‘Acknowledgments’ section. It is the responsibility of the authors to notify and obtain permission from those they wish to identify in this section. The process of obtaining permission should include sharing the article so that those being identified can verify the context in which their contribution is being acknowledged.

Groups of persons who have contributed materially to the article but whose contributions do not justify authorship may be listed under such headings as “clinical investigators” or “participating investigators,” and their function or contribution should be described - for example, “served as scientific advisors,” “critically reviewed the study proposal,” “collected data,” or “provided and cared for study patients.” Because readers may infer their endorsement of the data and conclusions, these persons must give written permission to be acknowledged.

Any assistance from AI tools for content generation (e.g. large language models) and other similar types of technical tools which generate article content, must be clearly acknowledged within the article. It is the responsibility of authors to ensure the validity, originality, and integrity of their article content. Authors are expected to use these types of tools responsibly and in accordance with our editorial policies on authorship and principles of publishing ethics.

The journal does not accept adverts from third parties.

Affiliations

Authors must list all relevant affiliations to attribute where the research was approved, supported, and/or conducted. For non-research articles, authors must list their current institutional affiliation. In case an author has moved to a different institution before the article has been published, they should list the affiliation where the work was conducted and list the current affiliation and contact details in the acknowledgment section. Change of affiliation alone is not a valid reason to remove an author from a publication if the author meets the authorship criteria.

Appeals and Complaints

The editorial board of the journal is responsible for addressing appeals and complaints in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations of the COPE. If an author has an appeal or complaint, they should contact the editorial office directly to discuss their concerns. The editorial board will review the case and make a decision based onCOPE guidelines.

The editor-in-chief has the final authority in the decision-making process for all appeals and complaints. In some cases, an ombudsperson may be assigned to resolve claims that cannot be resolved internally. It is important to note that the journal follows a fair and transparent process for handling appeals and complaints, with the goal of preserving the integrity of the scientific record.

Authorship

Being an author of a scientific article primarily indicates a person who has made a significant contribution to the article and shares responsibility and accountability for that article. To be recognized as an author of a scientific article, researchers should meet the following criteria:

Making a significant contribution to the work in one or more of the following phases: research conception or design, acquisition of data, analysis, and interpretation.
Drafting, writing, or revising the manuscript.
Agreeing on the final version of the manuscript and the journal to which it will be submitted.
Taking responsibility and accountability for the content of the article.

Contributions not included in the authorship criteria should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgment section.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work they have conducted, authors should also be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for other specific parts of the work. This ensures that all authors' contributions are accurately and appropriately acknowledged. Authors may use the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) to provide information about individual contributions at the time of submission. It is expected that all authors agree on their individual contributions as communicated by the corresponding author. The authors’ contribution statement will be published with the final article and should accurately reflect contributions to the work.

Furthermore, authors should have confidence in the integrity of their co-authors' contributions. This means trusting that their co-authors have conducted the research ethically and responsibly, and that the data and results presented in the manuscript are accurate and reliable.

Individuals who do not meet all four of the authorship criteria should not be listed as authors on the manuscript. However, they can be acknowledged on the title page of the manuscript for their contributions to the research. This recognizes the contributions of these individuals and provides transparency about who was involved in the research.

If the editorial board suspects a case of ghost, honorary, or gift authorship, the submission will be suspended, and the relevant COPE flowchart and COPE Policy on authorship and contributorship will be followed.

Change of Authorship

Any requests for changes to authorship, such as the removal or addition of authors, or changes in the order of authors, should be submitted to the editorial office along with a letter stating the reasons for the change. This letter must be signed by all authors, including any who are to be removed.

The journal’s Editorial Board will handle all requests for changes to authorship in a consistent and transparent manner, following the relevant COPE flowchart guidelines. These procedures are in place to protect the integrity of the research and the reputation of all involved authors.

Citations

Research and non-research articles must cite relevant, timely, and verified literature (peer-reviewed, where appropriate) to support any claims made in the article.

You must avoid excessive and inappropriate self-citation or prearrangements among author groups to inappropriately cite each other’s work, as this can be considered a form of misconduct called citation manipulation. Read the COPE guidance on citation manipulation.

If you’re the author of a non-research article (e.g. a Review or Opinion) you should ensure the references you cite are relevant and provide a fair and balanced overview of the current state of research or scholarly work on the topic. Your references should not be unfairly biased toward a particular research group, organization, or journal.

If you are unsure about whether to cite a source you should contact the journal editorial office for advice.

Confidentiality

A submitted manuscript is confidential material. Seatific Journal will not disclose submitted manuscripts to anyone except those involved in processing and preparing the manuscript for publication (if accepted), such as editorial staff, corresponding authors, potential reviewers, actual reviewers, and editors. However, in cases of suspected misconduct, a manuscript may be revealed to members of the Academic Journals’ ethics committees, as well as any institutions or organizations that may require it to resolve the suspected misconduct.

Copyright Policy

A Copyright Agreement, which includes an Acknowledgement of Authorship, must be submitted with all manuscripts. Authors, by signing this agreement, consent that if their article is accepted for publication by Seatific Journal, it will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). This license permits third parties to share and adapt the content for non-commercial purposes, provided they appropriately credit the original work.

Authors must obtain permission from copyright holders to use any previously published material such as figures, tables, or any other content in both print and electronic formats. Authors bear the legal, financial, and criminal liabilities related to copyright infringement. The copyright of their work published in Seatific Journal remains with the authors.

Authors retain copyright and transfer the commercial rights only to Seatific Journal. All published articles are licensed under CC-BY-NC Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Authors can use a copy of his article in his research activities, own websites, institutional and/or funder’s websites by providing full citation to the version published in Seatific Journal. Authors have the right to transmit, print and share the first submitted copies with colleagues, professional positions, and career with citing to Seatific Journal publication.

Declaration of Interests

Authors must disclose any relationships or interests that could inappropriately influence or bias their work. This disclosure should be made through the online submission system while submitting their manuscript.

Seatific Journal also requires and encourages individuals involved in the peer review process of submitted manuscripts to disclose any existing or potential competing interests that might lead to potential bias.

The Editorial Board will handle cases of potential competing interests of editors, authors, or reviewers in accordance with the relevant COPE flowchart

Desk Rejection Policy

The topic / scope of the study is not relevant to the field of the Journal.
There are publication ethics problems, non-adherence to international standard guidelines, and plagiarism (set at a similarity index of higher than 30 percent).
The topic does not have a sufficient impact, nor does it sufficiently contribute new knowledge to the field.
There are flaws in the study design.
The objective of the study is not clearly stated.
The study of the organization is problematic and/or certain components are missing.
There are problems in writing or series infelicities of in the style of grammar.
The manuscript does not follow the submission guideline of the Journal.

Disclaimer

The statements or opinions expressed in the manuscripts published in the journal reflect the views of the author(s) and not those of the editors, editorial board, or publisher. The editors, editorial board, and publisher are not responsible for the content of the manuscripts and do not necessarily endorse the views expressed within them. It is the responsibility of the authors to ensure that their work is accurate and well-researched. The views expressed are their own. The editors, editorial board, and publisher provide a platform for the authors to share their work with the scientific community.

Duplicate Submission/Publication

Authors are required to declare upon submission that the manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere, and as such the detection of a duplicate submission or publication is typically considered to be a deliberate act. This includes articles previously published in another language. For acceptable forms of secondary submissions or publications (e.g. an article translated into English), in accordance with ICMJE guidance, authors must seek permission from the publisher and copyright holder of the original article and must inform the Editor of the receiving journal about the history of the original article. It must also be made clear to readers that the article is a translated version, with a citation provided to the original article.

Financial Disclosure

Seatific Journal requires authors to disclose any financial support they received to conduct their research. This information should be included in the funding statement, which must be provided when the manuscript is submitted to the journal.

The funding statement should include the names of any granting agencies, the grant numbers, and a description of each funder's role in the research. If the funder had no role in the research, this should also be stated in the funding statement. This information is crucial for readers to understand the potential biases and conflicts of interest that may exist in the research.

Funding

The journal requires that authors declare all the sources of funding including financial support in their manuscript. The authors should describe the role of the sponsor(s), if any, in any of the stages from study design to submission of the manuscript for publication. They should also state if the sponsor(s) had no such involvement. Please ensure that this information is accurate and in accordance with your funder’s requirements.

Open Access Policy

Seatific Journal is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. The journal is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Deed - Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International - Creative Commons(CC BY-NC 4.0).

All published content is available online, free of charge at https://commons.yildiz.edu.tr/seatific.

Peer Review Policy

Submissions that conform to the journal’s guidelines will be assigned to the Editor in Chief, who will assess each submission’s suitability to the journal in terms of scope and quality. Submissions that are not suitable for the journal can be rejected at this stage.

For papers that are suitable for the journal, the Editor in Chief will work with Associate Editors, who will recruit reviewers for the manuscript. Once assigned, Associate Editors can decide to reject a manuscript, continue with the peer review process, or request revisions before further peer review.

Associate Editors will submit their recommendations, which are based on reports submitted by the reviewers, to the Editor in Chief. Revised manuscripts will be reassessed by the Associate Editors, who will aim to work with the original reviewers to make a new recommendation.

The Editor in Chief is the final authority in the decision-making process for all submissions.

In the event of delays, authors will be informed of the reason for the delay and given the opportunity to withdraw their manuscript.

Once the peer review process is completed, the authors will receive anonymous peer review reports along with the editorial decision on their manuscript. Peer review reports will not be posted publicly in any medium. The submitted material is considered confidential and must not be used in any way until after its publication. If it is suspected that a reviewer has appropriated an author’s ideas or data, the Editorial Board will handle the matter in accordance with the relevant COPE guidelines.

Authors can recommend peer reviewers during submission. The handling editor is the sole authority to decide whether or not recommended peer reviewers will be invited to evaluate the manuscript.

Peer reviewers are required to adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, and these guidelines provide a framework for reviewers to follow in order to ensure the integrity and fairness of the peer review process. The Editorial Board follows COPE’s relevant flowchart to minimize peer review manipulation. If there is suspicion of peer review manipulation after publication, the Editorial Board will follow the appropriate flowchart of COPE.

Potential peer reviewers should inform the Editor of any possible conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. Informing the editor of any potential conflicts of interest allows them to make an informed decision about whether or not to invite the potential reviewer to participate in the review process. It also helps to ensure the integrity and transparency of the review process.

Communications between Editors and peer reviewers contain confidential information that should not be shared with third parties.

To ensure an equitable peer review process, Seatific Journal will recruit external editors for manuscripts submitted by the Journal’s editorial board members. External editors will be selected based on academic qualifications and peer review experience. We uphold the confidentiality of external editors and reviewers to preserve impartiality. Reviewers and external editors are asked to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, promoting transparency and a reliable evaluation process.

Plagiarism and Ethical Misconduct

All submissions are screened multiple times during the peer-review and/or production processes using similarity detection software (Crossref Similarity Check powered by iThenticate).

When discussing work by others (or your own previous work), ensure that you correctly cite the material in every instance.

Authors are strongly advised to avoid any form of plagiarism and ethical misconduct, which include but are not limited to:

Citation Manipulation: The practice of artificially inflating citation counts through methods such as excessive self-citation, excessive citation of articles from the same journal, or the inclusion of honorary or stacked citations.
Self-Plagiarism (Text-Recycling): The practice of reusing sections or sentences from one's previous publications without proper citation. This is considered plagiarism as it involves using previously published work without proper attribution.
Salami Slicing: The unethical practice of dividing one significant piece of research into several smaller parts and publishing them as separate articles, which can mislead regarding the novelty and significance of the research.
Data Fabrication: Adding data that never occurred in the gathering of data or experiments. This is considered a serious form of research misconduct, presenting false information as real.
Data Manipulation/Falsification: Altering research data to misrepresent the research findings. This includes manipulating images, omitting inconvenient results, changing data points, etc., and is considered a form of research misconduct.

In the event of alleged or suspected research misconduct, such as plagiarism, citation manipulation, or data falsification/fabrication, the Editorial Board will follow the appropriate COPE flowcharts to ensure that the allegations or suspicions are handled in a fair, transparent, and consistent manner.

Post-Publication Corrections and Ethical Misconduct Handling

All requests for post-publication corrections are subject to editorial review. The editorial board will assess the request to determine whether a correction is necessary and appropriate. The decision to issue a correction will be based on the nature of the error, its potential impact on the article, and the availability of supporting evidence. The editorial board may consult with the authors, reviewers, and other experts as needed to make an informed decision. If a correction request is approved, the article will be corrected in the journal's archive.

The Editorial Board reviews cases in accordance with journal policies and COPE guidelines.

If allegations of misconduct are reported directly by whistleblowers, the Editorial Board will follow the relevant COPE flowchart. The journal will act in accordance with COPE's flowchart on how to respond to whistleblowers when concerns about a published article are raised on a social media site.

In some instances, an ombudsperson may be appointed to resolve claims that cannot be settled internally.

To investigate potential ethical misconduct more efficiently and effectively, the editorial board may share information with other editors-in-chief. If communication with the editor-in-chief is necessary, the editorial board will adhere to the relevant COPE recommendations.

If necessary, the journal may also contact institutions to inform them of suspected misconduct by researchers and provide evidence to support these concerns, following COPE guidelines throughout the process.

In the event of ethical misconduct concerns, the editors will conduct an investigation according to COPE guidelines. Should the investigation confirm the concern, the editors may issue a retraction notice. This notice will be published in the journal, and the article's record will be updated to reflect the retraction. Although retracted, the article will remain in the journal's archives but will be clearly marked as retracted. Additionally, the article's record will be updated in relevant indexes to reflect the retraction.

Preprint Policy

Seatific Journal does not consider preprints as prior publication, allowing authors to present and discuss their findings on a non-commercial preprint server before submitting their work to the journal.

However, authors must inform the journal of the preprint server deposition of their article, along with its DOI, during the initial submission process.

If the article is accepted and published in the journal, it is the responsibility of the authors to update the archived preprint and link it to the published version of the article. This ensures that readers can easily access the most up-to-date and accurate information.

Publication Ethics

Seatific Journal is committed to adhering to the guidelines and core practices set forth by several esteemed organizations, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (a joint statement by COPE, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). These guidelines are meticulously designed to promote transparency, integrity, and best practices in scholarly publishing.

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) provides a comprehensive framework for ethical publishing, addressing issues such as authorship disputes, plagiarism, and conflicts of interest. By following COPE's guidelines, Seatific Journal ensures that all published research is conducted and reported ethically, maintaining the trust of the scientific community and the public.

The Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, jointly issued by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME, outline critical aspects of journal operations, including the peer review process, editorial governance, and the handling of research data. These principles emphasize the importance of clear and accessible information about the journal's policies and procedures, fostering an environment of openness and accountability.

Adherence to these standards ensures that the research published by Seatific Journal is of high quality and meets the ethical standards of the scientific community. This commitment to ethical publishing practices not only enhances the credibility and reputation of the journal but also supports the advancement of knowledge by ensuring that published research is reliable, reproducible, and conducted with the highest level of integrity.

Responsibilities of Editors

Our editorial board carefully evaluates submitted articles based on their quality and merit, considering reviewer feedback and ensuring compliance with legal standards to avoid libel, copyright violations, and plagiarism, without bias towards the authors' background, nationality, political views, race, or religion. Editors maintain strict confidentiality, sharing manuscript details only with relevant parties, and unpublished content cannot be used without the author's permission. Transparency is ensured by disclosing funding sources and potential influences on the research. We strive for unbiased, fair, and efficient peer review, with special policies for submissions from editorial board members, and provide clear authorship guidelines. Reviewers are encouraged to flag ethical concerns, and their comments are shared with authors unless offensive. We appreciate our reviewers' contributions and discontinue collaboration with those providing poor, disrespectful, or delayed feedback. Editors uphold journal standards by verifying ethical approvals and addressing intellectual property issues, making prompt corrections when necessary. Reviewers assist in shaping the publication with objective, constructive critiques supported by evidence, avoiding personal attacks. They should decline reviews if lacking expertise or facing conflicts of interest, maintain confidentiality, and not use unpublished ideas or data for personal benefit, while ensuring proper attribution and identifying significant overlaps with other works.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play a crucial role in shaping publications by providing valuable feedback that assists editors in making informed decisions. Their critiques should be objective, constructive, and supported by evidence, avoiding any personal attacks on authors. If a reviewer lacks the necessary expertise or cannot evaluate a manuscript promptly, they should decline the invitation to review. It is also essential for reviewers to avoid conflicts of interest, such as connections to the authors or their institutions. Manuscripts under review are confidential, and reviewers must not use any unpublished ideas or data for their own benefit. Additionally, reviewers should identify any missing citations or significant overlap with other published works.

Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must present their research truthfully, with accurate data and a balanced discussion of its significance, ensuring raw data is available upon request and retained for at least two years after publication, as deliberately false claims are unethical and unacceptable. Submissions must be original, with proper credit given to others' work, and plagiarism in any form, as well as submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously, is unacceptable. Authors must disclose any financial or personal conflicts that could influence their work, and funding sources should always be acknowledged.

Authorship & Corrections

All listed co-authors must have made significant contributions and approved the final manuscript. If major errors are discovered after publication, authors must promptly notify the journal to issue corrections or retractions.

Peer Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to Seatific Journal will go through a double-anonymized peer review process where both authors and reviewers are anonymous to each other. Each submission will be reviewed by at least two external, independent peer reviewers, who are experts in their fields, in order to ensure an unbiased evaluation process.

Submissions will first go through a technical evaluation process during which the editorial office staff will ensure that the manuscript is prepared and submitted in accordance with the journal’s guidelines.

Submissions that do not conform to the journal’s guidelines will be returned to the authors with requests for technical corrections.

The Editor in Chief is the final authority in the decision-making process for all submissions.

In the event of delays, authors will be informed of the reason for the delay and given the opportunity to withdraw their manuscript.

Authors can recommend peer reviewers during submission. The handling editor is the sole authority to decide whether or not recommended peer reviewers will be invited to evaluate the manuscript.

Peer reviewers are required to adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, and these guidelines provide a framework for reviewers to follow in order to ensure the integrity and fairness of the peer review process. The Editorial Board follows COPE’s relevant flowchart. to minimize peer review manipulation. If there is suspicion of peer review manipulation after publication, the Editorial Board will follow the appropriate flowchart of COPE.

Communications between Editors and peer reviewers contain confidential information that should not be shared with third parties.

Plagiarism Policy

The journal has a zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism. We do not accept any submission that presents another person’s ideas, words, or work without proper credit. This includes:

Full or partial plagiarism – Copying content from other sources without attribution.
Duplicate or redundant publication – Submitting the same work to multiple journals.
Self-plagiarism – Reusing one’s own previously published work (even in a different language) without acknowledgment.

Exceptions: Preprints (shared in public archives before submission) are not considered duplicate publications.

Author Responsibilities

The corresponding author is responsible for the manuscript throughout the review and publication process and has the authority to act on behalf of all co-authors.
All submitted manuscripts are screened using professional plagiarism-detection software.
Papers with an unacceptable similarity index due to plagiarism will be rejected immediately.

Publication Fee Policy

Seatific Journal is funded by Yıldız Technical University. Authors are not required to pay any fees during the evaluation and publication process.

Publication Timing & Review Process

Submissions to Seatific Journal are accepted on an ongoing basis. They should follow the requested submission types and adhere to the full author guidelines outlined here. Seatific Journal publishes biannually in June and December. Submissions are considered for an issue’s publication period once deemed ready for publication and not necessarily based on the date of submission. All issues of Seatific Journal follow the same editorial and review processes and adhere to the guidelines contained herein. We encourage and welcome your submission.

Research Data Policy and Data Availability Guidelines for Authors

Seatific Journal encourages the sharing of research data to promote transparency, reproducibility, and the advancement of knowledge within the academic community. We recognize the importance of making data accessible to other researchers while respecting ethical and legal considerations. Authors are encouraged to make their data available to the public whenever possible, except where privacy, confidentiality, or legal constraints apply. Data should be shared in a manner that allows verification of results and the reuse of data for further research.

Role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Manuscript Preparation

Seatific Journal adheres to the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) regarding the use of AI and AI-assisted technology in manuscript preparation. Authorship involves tasks that can only be performed by humans. Authors are responsible for ensuring the originality of the article and possessing the necessary qualifications for authorship. While AI can be used for language corrections during the writing process, this usage should be explicitly stated in the article. AI cannot be included as an author because it is crucial to maintain the originality and quality of the article.

Self-Archiving Policy

Authors retain the right to self-archive their work on their institutional or personal websites, as well as in open access repositories, after publication. It is expected that authors will appropriately acknowledge the original publication and include the DOI number when sharing their articles. Additionally, authors are requested to provide a link from the deposited version to the URL of the publisher's website. This requirement ensures that the online published version on the publisher's website is recognized as the definitive version of record, maintaining the integrity and authenticity of the scientific record.

Withdrawal Requests

Withdrawal requests for an article are reviewed by the editorial board of the journal. To request the withdrawal of an article, authors must send a letter signed by all co-authors stating their request and the reasons for withdrawal to the journal editor. The editorial board will then review the request and make a decision based on the reasons provided by the authors. If the request is approved, the article will be withdrawn from the journal, and the authors will be notified of the decision. Authors are advised not to submit their work to another journal for evaluation until the withdrawal request has been approved, to avoid any potential conflicts of interest or duplication of publication.