Etik İlkeler ve Yayın Politikası

1. Ethical Principles 

Sakarya University Journal of Computer and Information Sciences (SAUCIS) pays attention to ethics in publishing at all levels. Authors should prepare articles submitted to the journal by considering the internationally recognized ethical guidelines. Author(s) can get more information on publishing ethics from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website (https://publicationethics.org). To attest to the unity of the published papers, SAUCIS editors are handled using COPE’s flowcharts on the condition that they suspect an ethical matter about the paper they process.

Authors are boosted to submit novel and high-quality works that have not been accepted or published by other journals. It is encouraged the best standards of publication ethics, and it is taken all possible precautions against publication carelessness. It is important to acknowledge standards of appropriate ethical behavior for all parties related to the act of publishing: authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher. The journal publisher takes its tasks of custody over all stages of publishing seriously and recognizes ethical and other engagements.

All submitted manuscripts are checked for plagiarism using the iThenticate plagiarism detection system. Manuscripts with a high similarity rate will not be considered for review and publication.

All articles submitted to the journal are archived with at least three versions in the DergiPark Journal Management System and Google Cloud Servers for the Faculty. The three types of the versions of the papers are the Submitted version, the Revision version if applicable, the Accepted version (Author Accepted Manuscript), Published version (Version of Record). Authors can access the deposit versions of the paper using the DergiPark Journal Management System.

The authors, reviewers, and editors of the journal are expected to be strictly committed to ensuring the policy of publication ethics and malpractice, and observance to the following statements:

1.1. Authors' Responsibilities

Sakarya University Journal of Computer and Information Sciences is a peer-reviewed journal, and authors are obliged to participate in our single-blind peer-review process. Unethical publishing behaviors such as plagiarism and self-plagiarism (There are many forms of plagiarism like copying or substantially paraphrasing any other work and claiming results from papers published by others.) are unacceptable in the SAUCISAll forms of plagiarism are intolerable, and the work will be rejected during the evaluation process*. At least the corresponding author has to sign and attach the "SAUCIS Copyright Release Form" during the submission process.

Each submitted work will be pre-reviewed by a member of "Editorial Assistants - Secretary" for their formal body, formatting in consistency with the "Author Guidelines," including in mind correspondence to the journal sections and topics, etc. When a paper is prepared in a proper way, the article will be sent to the section editor for single-blind peer reviewing by at least two independent reviewers. The peer-reviewing of the work is mandatory, and authors must admit this rule.

At least two reviewers' comments and recommendations will be sent to the author(s), Following the review process completion by the section editorDuring the revision process, the author must submit at least 3 files containing the tracked changes, the final clean version of the manuscript, and responses to the reviewers' commentsIt is the responsibility of the corresponding author to assurance that all the other authors have confirmed the work.

Co-authors should have remarkable support in the work. Any other persons who have been attended in a project and/or research as collaborators should be listed as contributors in the acknowledgment. 

When the author detects a major error or mistake in the submitted work or previously published paper, they are obliged to notify the editor or publisher promptly. After this stage, the author should either withdraw the paper or try to edit the paper in cooperation with the publisher/editor. Three different corrections can be made in SAUCIS. These are erratum, addendum, corrigendum note. If the editor or publisher determines the work published contains significant errors by a third party, the author must either correct the article quickly or prove the accuracy of the article and provide evidenceIf the author does not fulfill this obligation, the article will be withdrawn.

Before submitting any work to the SAUCIS, the authors must ensure that;

  • the work is his/her/their own original work and does not infringe the copyright or other rights,
  • the work or any version with minor revision of it has not previously been published or submitted for publication elsewhere,
  • the work must not be under evaluation for any other publication as it is being evaluated by the SAUCIS,
  • all the data in work is a high scientific and technical standard,
  • potential conflicts of interest should be remarked at the earliest stage possible (should be written to the editor note in the submission stage),
  • if the work is about clinical and experimental studies on human or animal subjects, it should be attached an ethical report (Ethics Committee Approval) during submission. this approval must be stated in work and documented.
  • In studies requiring ethics committee permission, information about the permit (name of the board, date, and number) should be included in the method section as well as on the first/last page of the article.

1.2. Reviewers' Responsibilities

Following a manuscript submission, one of the members of the SAUCIS Editorial Board determines appropriate reviewers according to the subject of the manuscript. SAUCIS reviewer pool, DergiPark User Pool, or new reviewer invitation are the source of the potential reviewers. Before the review process, works are checked for plagiarism using iThenticate by the Editorial Assistants. Works could be rejected after the plagiarism process. Invited reviewers are free to accept or decline the invitation. If the reviewer accepts the invitation, however, they understand that he/she has not insufficient knowledge about the subject, should inform the Section Editor and cancel the process. SAUCIS review process is single-blind and done by at least two independent reviewers who are experts in their fields. Generally, the review invitation of the third reviewer depends on if the two reviewers’ decisions are quite different. After the reviewer accepts the invitation, it is expected to return his/her response using the "SAUCIS Reviewer Recommendation and Comments" form within 15 days. The review decision could be one of them: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject and Resubmit, Reject. Next, the decision of the review is informed to the author(s).

All manuscripts are confidential and should not be shared with any other people in any way.

Reviewers should reconsider the work, write their reports and make their decisions in an objective way. The opinions about the work should be presented unbiased and based on scientific values. Personal preferences about the work and personal thoughts about the author(s) should not affect the decision process. Reviewers should not make personal criticism of the author(s). Reviewers should express their opinions evidently with associated arguments. A review should evaluate works for their scholarly content, regardless of folk, gender, religious, ethnic provenance, nationality, or political idea of the authors. 

Reviewers’ research must not reveal the unpublished materials without permission from the author(s) in their research. Private information or ideas should be kept confidential during the review process and should not be used for personal benefits. If the reviewer has a conflict of interest, connection, or association with the author(s), institution, or company that conducted the study, he/she should not accept the evaluation and report this to the Section Editor. Since the process is single-blind, reviews are not allowed to contact the author(s) directly. If the reviewer needs additional information or additional materials about the work, he/she may request it by notifying the Section Editor.

Decision of the finished review process is informed to the corresponding author(s).

1.3. Editors' Responsibilities

Following the pre-review phase, the manuscript is sent to Editor-In-Chief for evaluation. Editor-In-Chief assigns a Section Editor. The Section Editor determines at least two reviewers whose study interest is related to the manuscript and sends the article for evaluation. Generally, the review invitation of the third reviewer depends on if the two reviewers’ decisions are quite different. After the reviewers' submission of their evaluations, the Section Editor can decide “Accept,” “Minor Revision,” “Major Revision,” “Reject and Resubmit,” or “Reject " according to the comments. After a revision request, the author is required to submit at least 3 files: the manuscript file which shows (highlights) changes made (usually known as track changes), the manuscript file in the final clean version (in which the changes made are accepted), and responses to the comments of the reviewers. After the author(s)' response to the revision request, the Section Editor sends the uploaded files to reviewers again. The Section Editor has the right to change previous reviewers or the number of reviewers. A revision can be requested from the author at most 3 times, and otherwise, the article is rejected. The Section Editor reports the result of the last evaluation to the Editor-In-Chief.

Copyright infringement and plagiarism are two important issues in the editorial process. In case of occurrence or violation of these situations, the Editors inform the Editor-In-Chief. In these processes, Editor-In-Chief manages legal obligations and compliance/non-compliance with “Copyright and Consent Form.”

The selection of editors and reviewers should be unbiased and based on merit. An editor should evaluate works for their scholarly content, regardless of folk, gender, religious, ethnic provenance, nationality, or political idea of the authors. Editor and any official of the journal should not share any information in the submitted work with anyone other than the authors, reviewers, and the publisher during the evaluation process. In case the work is rejected, this information is found as confidential information and should not be shared. Information about the unpublished work must not be used in the editor’s own research without the author's express written consent. Similarly, editors and any official are prohibited from keeping this information confidential and using it for personal benefits. The editors should pay special care to provide healthy communication throughout the evaluation process. If the edit has a conflict of interest, connection, or association with the author(s), institution, or company that conducted the work, he/she should not accept the editorial process and report this to the Editor-In-Chief. Thus, Editor-In-Chief has to assign a new editor to work.

An editor who provides evidence of erroneous results, plagiarism, duplication, or major error in the published article, is obliged to report corrections, retractions, or similar situations as a subject of an erratum, addendum, corrigendum note to the Editor-In-Chief.

The editor should take reasonable precautions when ethical complaints arise in the submitted/published work. Within the scope of these measures, the author of the work will be asked to respond to complaints and claims. The editor can contact institutions other than authors.


2. Publication Policy

The SAUCIS is a peer-reviewed international scientific journal that has an open access policy. The first round of peer review is 32 days on average, and the second round is 22 days on average.


3. Publication Process

3.1. The manuscript is sent with the copyright form in its first submission. Journal secretaries check that the manuscript meets the journal style and spelling rules. Then, the plagiarism program checks the similarity rate, and if necessary, correction is requested by contacting the author.

3.2. After the pre-review phase, the manuscript is sent to Editor-In-Chief for evaluation. Editor-In-Chief assigns a Section Editor. The Section Editor determines at least two reviewers whose study interest is related to the manuscript and sends the article for evaluation. The type of peer review is single-blind. The reviewers submit their evaluations via the "SAUCIS Reviewer Recommendation and Comments" form. The Section Editor can decide "Accept," "Revision," or "Reject" according to the comments. During the revision process, the author must submit at least 3 files containing the tracked changes, the final clean version of the manuscript, and responses to the reviewers' comments. The Section Editor sends the files from the author to the reviewers again. The Section Editor has the right to change reviewers or increase their number. A revision can be requested from the author at most 3 times, and otherwise, the article is rejected. The Section Editor reports the result of the evaluation to the Editor-In-Chief.

3.3. The Editor-In-Chief makes the final decision, taking into account the Section Editor's suggestion, the comments of the reviewers, and the authors' responses.

3.4. In the case of acceptance, the article is checked for spelling and language control for the last time. At this stage, if necessary, the author is contacted. After these processes, the article is ready for publication and added to the first issue to be published.


* Evaluation process describes the whole process of the work from submission to final decision or publication.