1. Articles uploaded to Aerospace Research Letters (ASREL) must be in Turkish.
2. When uploading the article to the system, the report on the results of the emergency should be below 15 percent. After the article is uploaded to the journal, the similarity report will be reviewed and the arbitration process will be initiated according to this report. If the similarity rate is above 15 percent, the article will be returned to the author.
3. The ethical responsibility of each study is the responsibility of the author/author unilaterally. Our journal does not accept any obligation in this regard. The author(s) must obtain permission and notify the journal management of any work requiring the approval of the Ethics Committee or the organization.
4. At the time of uploading the article, the copyright transfer form must be completed and signed by the responsible author and uploaded to the system, stating that all copyright rights of the article have been transferred to Aerospace Research Letters (ASREL).
5. During the evaluation process of all articles; double blind peer review process is run as arbitration type and evaluated by at least two referees. If one of the arbitrators gives a negative or positive opinion, the Journal Publication Commission may review the referee reports and decide to appoint a third arbitrator or return the article to the author. At least two arbitrators must submit positive opinions before the article can be published. In the double blinding method, the author and referee identities of the works are hidden.
6. Articles to be sent to the journal must be written in accordance with the article template and publication rules on the Journal Home Page.
7. You can access the files to be sent to the journal (Copyright transfer form, Ethics Statement Form, Cover Letter, Title Page) from the article submission files page.
GENERAL ACTIONS AGAINST SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION ETHICS
1. Plagiarism: Present others’ ideas, methods, data, practices, letters, shapes or works as if they were all or part of their work without citing them in accordance with scientific ethics rules;
2. Fraud: To produce data that is not based on the research, to edit or modify the submitted or published work based on unreal data, to report or publish it, to make it appear as if an unconducted research has been done;
3. Duplicate issue: To present multiple works of research that contain the same results as individual works in academic fields,
4. Slicing: Presenting the results of an investigation as separate works in specific examination evaluations and academic incentives and promotions by disintegrating them in an inappropriate manner and by publishing a large number of publications without citing each other;
5. Unfair writing: Add non-active contributors to article authors, exclude those who have active contributions from the author from the list of authors, change the list of authors in a way that is unjustified and inappropriate, remove the names of those who have active contributions from the work during or after the publication, and have their names included in the authors by using their influence even if they do not have an active contribution,
6. Other types of violations: Failing to explicitly state the contributions of the persons, institutions or organizations that support the publications of the research conducted through the procurement, failing to comply with the ethical rules in the studies conducted on human and animal animals, failing to respect patient rights in their publications, sharing with others the information contained in a work assigned to examine as referees, using the resources, venues, facilities and devices provided for scientific research, completely unfounded and unfounded charge of wilful violation (YÖK Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive, Article 8)
IN THE STUDIES TO BE EVALUATED
1. Stating in case presentations that the "Illuminated consent form" has been received,
2. Obtaining and specifying permission from the owners for the use of scales, surveys, and photos of others,
3. It is necessary to state that the copyright regulations are complied with for the ideas and works of art used.
The stakeholders and readers of the research welcome the reporting of scientific research and publication ethics in articles published in Necmettin Erbakan University Aerospace Research Letters (ASREL) to the relevant email address under the journal management or to the Scientific Publications Coordinator at Necmettin Erbakan University ([email protected]).
1. Editors have the responsibility and authority to accept or reject articles. This responsibility and authority must be used on time and in place.
2. The editors should not be in conflict of interest with the articles they accept or reject.
3. Editors must accept articles that are original and will contribute to their field.
4. The editors must reject incomplete and erroneous research that does not comply with the journal policy, rules of publication and level without any impact.
5. The editors should allow for the withdrawal of false, incomplete and problematic articles prior to or after the referee’s report or to be published after correction.
6. The editors ensure that articles assessed by at least two referees are assessed according to the double-sided blind arbitration system and keep referees confidential.
7. The editors use the "Ithenticate" apocalypse program to ensure that the articles are in the state of vengeance and are unique unpublished research.
Responsibilities of Arbitrators
1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Helps editors make editorial decisions and helps authors improve their articles through editorial communication. The completion of other articles, works, resources, references, rules and similar deficiencies related to the article must be pointed out.
2. Acceleration: Any arbitrator who does not feel adequate to review the article proposal or who knows that the article review cannot be completed on time must immediately notify the editors and reject the invitation for review so that a new referee can be appointed.
3. Confidentiality: All article suggestions submitted for review are confidential documents and should be handled as such. Should not be shown or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor. This also applies to the referees who refuse the invitation for examination.
4. Objectivity Standards: Comments on the article proposal should be made objectively and recommendations should be made in a way that authors can use to develop the article. Personal criticism of authors is not appropriate.
5. Acceptance of Resources: Arbitrators must define the relevant published works not quoted by authors. The arbitrator should also report to the editor any significant similarities between the reviewed article and any other article (whether published or not).
6. Conflicts of Interest: When the referees suspect that there is a conflict of interest in the article they are considering, they should inform the editorial of the journal about the assessment process and, if necessary, reject the article assessment. There should be no conflict of interest between the referees and the stakeholders of the article on the subject of the assessment.
1. All data in the article must be declared authentic and authentic.
2. It is mandatory to carry out the status of the emergency, errors, suspicious circumstances and proposed corrections as indicated by the preliminary assessment or the arbitrator assessment. If not, a consistent justification should be provided.
3. The "Bibliography" of the article or the research must be prepared in full and in accordance with the rules of writing in our journal.
4. Avoid prejudice and false data.
5. The survey should not be published in more than one journal.
6. Arbitration Assessment: The authors are obliged to participate in the arbitration process and are obliged to cooperate fully by responding promptly to the raw data requests, disclosures and evidence of ethical approval and copyright authorizations of the editors. In the event of a "necessary revision" decision first, the authors should review and re-submit their articles until the deadline for the arbitrators' comments systematically.
7. Main Errors in Published Works: When authors find significant errors or mistakes in their own work, they are obliged to immediately notify the editors or publishers of the journal and to collaborate with the editors of the journal or the publishers to correct a string error (erratum) or to remove the article from the publication. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published study contains a significant mistake or mistake, the author must be obliged to promptly correct or withdraw the article or provide the journal’s editors with evidence of the accuracy of the paper.