This policy for handling complaints of research misconduct is based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also adheres to the Turkish Scientific and Technological Research Council (TUBITAK).

The IJAST Journal understands that all Authors undertakes the responsibility of the below conditions.

• Before submitting, authors must read the journal’s author instructions and ethical principles carefully and comply to the requirements.
• Authors have the option of suggesting possible reviewers for the double-blind peer-review process; however, the credentials and any conflicts of interest of all potential reviewers will be thoroughly evaluated prior to their invitation to review.

The IJAST journal accepts the issueas the below items.

• A report of research misconduct may concern a published paper or a manuscript undergoing peer review.
• The application and handling of author misconduct complaints should be handled with care, subtlety, and discretion, and in the following manner:

Dealing and Approaching the Misconduct Situations

The below STEPS are the editor’s approach for allegations.

1. The editorial office of the journal gets a complaint alleging research misconduct in a submitted or published article.
2. The complaint must specify the particular way and detail of misbehavior; for instance, in a case of plagiarism, the plagiarized paragraph must be emphasized, and the original and suspected publications must be cited properly.
3. The editorial office will begin an inquiry, during which the journal editor and the suspected article’s corresponding author(s) will be contacted.
4. The related author(s) will be required to submit an explanation supported by factual assertions and any accessible proof.
5. Depending on the scenario, the editorial office will take the following measures if the accused article’s author(s) acknowledge the allegation of unethical behavior:
6. If the article has been published, it may be required to issue an erratum or withdraw it. Yet, disagreements may persist on the right language of the description.
7. If the misconduct is reported during the review process, the relevant revisions may be made by the author(s) while the review process continues.
8. In the case of non-response within the specified time frame or an insufficient reason, the article may be retracted or rejected permanently. Before a decision is made, confirmation will be sought from the appropriate institution’s specialists or other authorities as necessary.
9. The outcome will be communicated to the complaint after the issue has been handled.

The complaint matter will thereafter be regarded as resolved.