Ethical Principles and Editorial Policy

Publication Ethics

The publication process at JOSAM is the basis of the improvement and dissemination of information objectively and respectfully. Therefore, the procedures in this process improve the quality of the studies. Peer-reviewed studies are the ones that support and materialize the scientific method. At this point, it is of utmost importance that all parties included in the publication process (authors, readers and researchers, publisher, reviewers and editors) comply with the standards of ethical considerations. JOSAM expects all parties to hold the following ethical responsibilities.

JOSAM expects all parties to hold the following ethical responsibilities. All manuscripts must have an ethics code issued by the relevant ethical committee, and academic/research institute. Please kindly provide us with the ethics code of your manuscript.

The following ethical duties and responsibilities are written in light of the guidelines and policies made by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

The authors who submit their manuscripts to JOSAM are expected to comply with the following ethical responsibilities:

Author(s) must submit original studies to the journal. If they utilize or use other studies, they must make the in-text and end-text references accurately and completely.
People who have not contributed to the study at the intellectual level should not be indicated as authors.
If the manuscripts submitted to be published are subject to conflicting interests or relations, these must be explained.
During the review process of their manuscripts, author(s) may be asked to supply raw data. In such a case, author(s) should be ready to submit such data and information to the editorial and scientific boards.
Author(s) should document that they have the participants' consent and the necessary permissions related with the sharing and research/analysis of the data that are used.
Author(s) bears the responsibility to inform the editor of the journal or publisher if they happen to notice a mistake in their study which is in early release or publication process and to cooperate with the editors during the correction or withdrawal process.
Authors cannot submit their studies to multiple journals simultaneously. Each submission can be made only after the previous one is completed. A study published in another journal cannot be submitted to JOSAM.
Author responsibilities that are given in a study (e.g.: adding an author, reordering of author names) whose review process has begun cannot be changed.

Plagiarism Statement
Authors should accept the following statement;

"The authors certify that the manuscript is their own work and it is free from plagiarism, including self-plagiarism. Proper citations and references have been provided for all materials derived from other sources."

Plagiarism Check

No data, text or theory of others shall be presented as the author's own ("plagiarism"). Authors are required to ensure that their submitted manuscripts undergo a thorough similarity and plagiarism check using either iThenticate or Turnitin Similarity. It is crucial for authors to diligently employ these plagiarism programs to maintain the integrity and originality of their work. This process should be conducted at two stages: first, upon initial submission, and second, after the manuscript has been accepted. Authors are required to upload the plagiarism reports. When necessary, the journal may use software such as (iThenticate or Crossref Similarity Check powered by iThenticate) to detect plagiarism at any time during the peer review and/or production process.

The maximum acceptable similarity rates are as follows: 8% for a primary source and 30% for total similarity. If requested, authors should be ready to submit relevant documents or data to verify the validity of the results presented. In the event of alleged or suspected research misconduct, such as plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data forgery / fabrication, the Editorial Board will follow and act in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors
The editor and field editors of JOSAM should hold the following ethical responsibilities that are based on the guides "COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" and "COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" published as Open Access by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

General duties and responsibilities
Editors are responsible for each study published in JOSAM. In this respect, the editors have the following roles and responsibilities:

Making efforts to meet the demand for knowledge from readers and authors,
Ensuring the continuous development of the journal,
Managing the procedures aimed to improve the quality of the studies published in the journal,
Supporting freedom of expression,
Ensuring academic integrity,
Following the procedures without making concessions on intellectual property rights and ethical standards,
Being transparent and clear in issues that require correction or explanation.

Relationships with Readers
Editors must make decisions taking into consideration the knowledge, skills, and expectations of all readers, researchers, and practitioners need. They must also ensure that the published studies contribute to the literature and be original. Moreover, they must take notice of the feedback received from researchers and practitioners and provide explanatory and informative feedback.

Relationships with Authors
Editors have the following duties and responsibilities in their relations with authors:
Editors must make positive or negative decisions about the studies' importance, originality, validity, clarity in wording, and suitability with the journal's aims and objectives.
Editors must accept the studies that are within the scope of the publication in the pre-review process unless there are serious problems with the study.
Editors must not ignore positive suggestions made by reviewers unless there are serious problems with the study.
New editors, unless there are serious issues, must not change the previous editor's decisions about the studies.
"Blind Review and Review Process" must be published and editors must prevent possible diversions in the defined processes.
Editors must publish an "Author's Guide" that is comprehensive enough in answering queries by authors. This guide must be updated regularly.
Authors should be provided with explanatory and informative feedback.

Relationships with Reviewers
Editors have the following duties and responsibilities in their relations with reviewers:

Editors must;
choose reviewers according to the subject of the study.
provide the information and guidance reviewers may need during the review process.
observe whether there are conflicting interests between reviewers and authors.
keep the identities of reviewers confidential in blind review.
encourage the reviewers to review the manuscript in an unbiased, scientific and objective tone.
evaluate reviewers regularly based on criteria like performance and timing.
develop practices and policies that increase the performance of reviewers.
take necessary steps to update the reviewer pool dynamically.
prevent unkind and unscientific reviews.
make effort to ensure the reviewer pool has a wide range.

Relationships with the Editorial Board
Editors must make sure that the members of the editorial board follow the procedures in accordance with the publication policies and guidelines, and must inform the members about the publication policies and developments. The editors must also train new members of the editorial board and provide the information they need.

Moreover, editors must
ensure that the members of the editorial board review the manuscripts in an unbiased and independent manner.
select the new members of the editorial board from those who can contribute to the journal and are qualified enough.
send manuscripts for review based on the subject of expertise of the editorial board members.
regularly communicate with the editorial board.
arrange regular meetings with the editorial board for the development of publication policies and the journal.

Relationships with the Journal's Owner and Publisher
The relationship between the editors and the publisher is based on the principle of the independence of editors. All the decisions made by the editors are independent of the publisher and the owner of the journal as required by the agreement made between editors and publisher.

Editorial and Blind Review Processes
Editors are obliged to comply with the policies of "Blind Review and Review Process" stated in the journal's publication policies. Therefore, the editors ensure that each manuscript is reviewed in an unbiased, fair, and timely manner.

Quality Assurance
Editors must make sure that articles in the journal are published in accordance with the publication policies of the journal and international standards.

Protection of Personal Information
Editors are supposed to protect the personal information related to the subjects or visuals in the studies being reviewed and to reject the study if there is no documentation of the subject's consent. Furthermore, editors are supposed to protect the personal information of the authors, reviewers, and readers.

Encouraging Ethical Rules and Protection of Human and Animal Rights
Editors are supposed to protect human and animal rights in the studies being reviewed and must reject the experimental studies which do not have ethical and related committee’s approval about the population given in such studies.

Policies on Human and Animal Rights, and Informed Consent

For all studies containing data from any living organism (except case reports, review articles, and letters to editor), approval by the institutional ethical review committee is obligatory in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration ethical standards. In such research, the authors refer to the "Methods and methods" section of the study in accordance with the "Helsinki Declaration principles", Ethical committee approval, and "informed consent" by those participating in the study. The institution and number/date information for the ethics committee approval should be given. If "Animal" substance is used in the study, authors are obliged to indicate that they are working in accordance with the principles of "manuals and methods for the use of laboratory animals" and to conduct research in accordance with ethical rules. The Committee of experiments used by animals, the institution, and the number/date information concerning the Ethical committee approval of the experimental animals should be given.

In case-report presentations, it should be noted that "informed consent" has been received independently of the patient's identity. Patients have privacy rights that should not be violated without receiving informed consent. The identification of the information, including the patient's name, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, or photographs unless necessary for scientific purposes, and the patient (or parent or guardian) written for publication informed consent. The notified consent for this purpose requires that an identifiable patient be presented with the published manuscript. The author should identify the individuals who help the authors and disclose the resources of this help. Specifying details should be skipped when they are not required. However, it is difficult to obtain complete anonymity, and if you have doubts, informed consent should be taken. For example, the eye area mask in photos of patients is insufficient protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic pedigrees, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning and editors should so note.

The Declaration of Helsinki states that "Every clinical trial must be registered in a publicly accessible database before recruitment of the first subject". Recommended registries:


Precautions against possible Abuse and Malpractice

Editors are supposed to take precautions against possible abuse and malpractice. They must conduct investigations meticulously and objectively in determining and evaluating complaints about such situations. They must also share the results of the investigation.

Ensuring Academic Integrity
Editors must make sure that the mistakes, inconsistencies or misdirections in studies are corrected quickly.

Protection of Intellectual Property Rights
Editors are responsible for protecting the intellectual property rights of all the articles published in the journal and the rights of the journal and author(s) in cases where these rights are violated. Also, editors must take the necessary precautions in order to prevent the content of all published articles from violating the intellectual property rights of other publications.

Constructiveness and Openness to Discussion

Editors must
pay attention to the convincing criticism about studies published in the journal and must have a constructive attitude towards such criticism.
grant the right of reply to the author(s) of the criticized study.
not ignore or exclude the study that includes negative results.

Editors must examine the complaints from authors, reviewers or readers and respond to them in an explanatory and enlightening manner.

Political and Economic Apprehensions
Neither the owner of the journal, publisher nor any other political or economical factor can influence the independent decision-making of the editors.

Conflicting Interests
Editors, acknowledging that there may be conflicting interests between reviewers and other editors, guarantee that the publication process of the manuscripts will be completed in an independent and unbiased manner

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
The fact that all manuscripts are reviewed through "Blind Review" has a direct influence on the publication quality. This process ensures confidentiality through an objective and independent review. The review process at JOSAM is carried out on the principle of double-blind review. Reviewers do not contact the authors directly, and the reviews and comments are conveyed through the journal management system. In this process, the reviewer's views on the evaluation forms and full texts are assigned to the author(s) by the editor. Therefore, the reviewers doing review work for JOSAM are supposed to bear the following ethical responsibilities:

Reviewers must
agree to review only their subject of expertise.
review in an unbiased and confidential manner.
inform the editor of the journal if they think that they encounter a conflict of interests and decline to review the manuscript during the review process.
dispose of the manuscripts they have reviewed in accordance with the principle of confidentiality after the review process. Reviewers can use the final versions of the manuscripts they have reviewed only after publication.
review the manuscript objectively and only in terms of its content and ensure that nationality, gender, religious and political beliefs, and economic apprehension do not influence the review.
review the manuscript in a constructive and kind tone, avoid making personal comments including hostility, slander and insult.
review the manuscript they have agreed to review on time and in accordance with the ethical rules stated above.

Ethical Responsibilities of Publisher
Publisher of JOSAM has a non-profit aim. Publisher and the Board of JOSAM  are  conscious of the fact that they must observe the ethical responsibilities below and act accordingly:

Editors are responsible for all the processes that the manuscripts submitted to JOSAM will go through. Within this framework, ignoring the economic or political interests, the decision-makers are the editors.
The publisher undertakes to have independent editorial decision-making.
The publisher protects the intellectual property rights of all the articles published in JOSAM and holds the responsibility to keep a record of each unpublished article.
The publisher bears all the responsibility to take precautions against scientific abuse, fraud, and plagiarism.

Unethical Behaviour
Should you encounter any unethical act or content in JOSAM apart from the ethical responsibilities listed above, please notify the journal by e-mail at

Duplicate/Previous Publication or Submission
Manuscripts are considered with the understanding that they have not been published previously in print, electronic format, or any repository, and are not under consideration by another publication or electronic medium. Copies of related or possibly duplicative materials (ie, those containing substantially similar content or using the same or similar data) that have been previously published or are under consideration elsewhere must be provided at the time of manuscript submission.

Reviewer conflict of interest
Conflict of interest (COI) self-assessment must be performed by members of the editorial team and external peer reviewers involved in the assessment of manuscripts. Common examples of COI include situations where there is financial gain, or when authors who are collaborating, directly competing, or are members of the same institution are reviewing each other's work. To some extent, especially within highly subspecialized fields, some degree of conflict of interest may be difficult to avoid.

Editors and reviewers will be asked to provide a COI statement when reviewing articles addressing the following questions:

- Is there any financial gain that may result from your review of this work? 
- Currently or in the last 2 years, is there an existing relationship with any of the manuscript authors such as shared grant support, shared publications, or collaborative projects?
- Currently or in the last 2 years, do you share institutional or other affiliations with any of the authors that may affect your judgment of this work? 
- Do you have (currently or in the past) a personal or family relationship with any of the authors that may result in a conflict or a perceived conflict of interest? 

If the answer to any of these statements is "Yes" the editor or reviewer should recuse themselves from the review of the manuscript and the article will be assigned to a different editor or reviewer.

Submissions from editors and editorial board members
Editors and members of the editorial board are permitted to submit articles for consideration by the journal. In order to minimize the possibility of COI, the managing editor for the submission will be a member of the editorial board who is from a different institution. The editor submitting the article will not be included in editorial discussions, the peer review process, or decisions regarding the manuscript. For the submission, they will receive the same treatment as any other author who submits work to the journal.

Similarly, article submissions from the editor-in-chief will be handled by a member of the editorial board from a different institution, who will oversee the editorial process and peer review. The editor-in-chief will not be permitted to participate in the editorial process and the managing editor will make the final decision regarding the manuscript.

As above, determining the editorial team members and peer reviewers who are best positioned to assess the manuscript, will be guided by the above-mentioned COI self-assessment.

The Process for Handling Cases Requiring Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial Expressions of Concern
JOSAM ensures that all of its published journals follow the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

We aim to ensure the integrity of the academic record of all published or potential publications. Whenever it is recognized that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement, or distorted report has been published, it must be corrected promptly and with due prominence. If, after an appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, it should be retracted. The retraction should be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.


Errors in published papers may be identified in the form of a corrigendum or erratum when the Editor-in-Chief considers it appropriate to inform the journal readership about a previous error and makes a correction to the error in the published article. The corrigendum or erratum will appear as a new article in the journal, and will cite the original published article.


Retractions are considered and published when there are severe errors in an article that invalidate the conclusions. Retractions are also made in cases where there is evidence of publication malpractice, such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical research.

According to industry best practice and in accordance with COPE guidelines, JOSAM implements the following procedure if a retraction is confirmed:

1. A retraction note titled “Retraction: [article title]” signed by the authors and/or the editor is published in a subsequent issue of the journal and listed in the contents list.

2. In the electronic version, a link is made to the original article.

3. The online article is preceded by a screen containing the retraction note. It is to this screen that the link resolves; the reader can then proceed to the article itself.

4. The original article is retained unchanged save for a watermark on the HTML and PDF indicating on each page that it has been “retracted.”

Editorial expressions of concern

Where substantial doubt arises as to the honesty or integrity of a submitted or published article, journal editors may consider issuing an expression of concern. However, expressions of concern should only be issued if an investigation into the problems relating to the article has proven inconclusive, and if there remain strong indicators that the concerns are valid. Under some rare cases, an editorial expression of concern may also be issued when an investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time.