Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

InHealth Theory Journal aims to  advance knowledge in the field of health management and health sciences objectively. InHealth Theory Journal contributes to science with double-blind peer-reviewed studies. Editors, authors, reviewers, publishers and readers in the InHealth Theory Journal strive to ensure that all processes proceed correctly. It is iessential to pay attention to ethical principles to achieve all these goals. InHealth Theory Journal accepts the ethical principles set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is supported by our journal. All stakeholders in the InHealth Theory Journal are expected to comply with the principles stated below.

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

-Authors must keep records and information about their research process and be able to to provide research-related data to the editor and scientific committee when necessary.

-Authors must ensure that their work is not simultaneously submitted to, published in, or accepted for publication in another journal.

-People who have not contributed to the study should not be shown as authors.

-If humans or animals are used as subjects in the study, ethical permissions must be obtained.

-This should be stated if there is any conflict of interest in the study.

-Since raw data will be needed during peer review, the data used in the study should be kept for at least five years.

-If authors notice any errors during their research publication and early appearance process of their work, they should share this with the editors.

Ethical Responsibilities of the Publisher

-The publisher must be responsibility for all ethical issues including scientific abuse, fraud, plagiarism, etc.

-The publisher must empower the Editors and the editorial board to make decisions regarding the publication process.

-The publisher is responsible for keeping records of the work related to the publication process.

Ethical Responsibilities of the Editor

- Improving the quality of the journal and published articles: Ensuring the scientific quality of submitted works is improved by properly managing the pre-screening processes. Providing that works are evaluated by appropriate and qualified editors during the pre-screening process. Working to ensure the journal is included in nationally and internationally reputable indexes.

- Informing the readership accurately and impartially.

- Guiding reviewers and authors in accordance with the journal's policies: Editors must ensure that all works are evaluated by appropriate and qualified reviewers. They must respond to the information requests of reviewers and authors. They must encourage and support reviewers to conduct impartial evaluations. Author information must be kept confidential. Authors must also ensure that reviewers do not see their information. The reviewer pool should be up-to-date and comprised of individuals from diverse disciplines.

- Guiding field editors and protecting personal data: Editors must ensure that appropriate and qualified field editors are assigned to each work. Field editors must ensure that processes are carried out correctly in accordance with the journal's policies. Editors should reject studies containing personal data unless there is explicit consent from individuals or institutions.

- Sensitivity to ethics committee approval and protection of human and animal rights: Editors must ensure that experimental studies have ethics committee approval. If an experimental study lacks ethics committee approval, it should be rejected.

- Protecting intellectual property rights:

- Taking criticism into account and carefully examining complaints: Complaints from authors, readers, and reviewers should be carefully evaluated. The relevant individuals should be responded to regarding their complaints.

- Acting independently of political and commercial concerns: Editors are not influenced by the political and commercial concerns of the publisher and journal owner. This does not affect their independent decision-making.

- Considering conflicts of interest: Editors should consider the conflicts of interest of authors, reviewers, and other editors. They should not assign reviewer duties to individuals serving as editors of the journal. They should not allow editors to submit articles to the journal.

Ethical Responsibilities of the Reviewers

Peer review is an important part of the evaluation process that contributes to the improvement of publications and the prevention of possible errors. In order for a study to be a scientific publication, referee review is required. Studies sent to our InHealth Theory journal are evaluated by expert academicians in the field. At least two review reports are completed for each study. If deemed necessary, additional referee reviews may be requested after the referee reviews. Our journal is based on double-blind peer review. Accordingly, reviewers should primarily follow and adhere to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines, the IJMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) recommendations, and the principles regarding reviewers in the Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Guidelines. Referees should primarily evaluate within the specified time, in a transparent and ethical manner. Referees should pay attention to the following issues;

-The reviewer must have at least one publication in the relevant field.

-There must be no conflict of interest. The reviewer must not have any conflict of interest with the editor and publisher.

-The reviewer must hold a PhD.

-The reviewer must not investigate the author or other reviewers.

-Reviewers must be careful not to disclose their identities in the studies they review.

-Reviewers must not use any part of the study, including the abstract, elsewhere and must keep the study confidential.

-Reviewers are required to notify the editor of any potential conflicts of interest. If they are unsure whether a situation is a conflict of interest, they should notify the editor. The following are some of the major conflicts of interest. If the referee has previously evaluated the same article in another journal, in this case, he/she may accept the invitation thinking that the study has been revised again. This situation should not be considered as a conflict of interest. If the referee will experience a financial or moral loss due to the publication of the study, he/she must notify the editor. If the referee has any personal relationship or competition with the authors, he/she must notify the editor. The referee should not have published with the authors before. Reviewers should not be working at the same institution as the authors.

You can review the following questions by considering them while evaluating;

-Is the article presented in a well-designed and appropriate manner for the field?

-Are the references mostly from the last 5 years (new publications) and related publications?

-Are the results of the article reproducible?

-Is the research methodology adequately detailed? (Purpose, model, hypothesis/research question, universe, sample, scales, data analysis criteria, data collection, etc.)

-Is the design of the article suitable for testing hypotheses or research questions?

-Are the figures and tables appropriate? Is their interpretation appropriate?

-Are the results sufficiently examined? Have the results been compared with the literature?

-Are limitations, assumptions, and suggestions for future studies given?

-Are there ethical statements?