Cedid adopts a publication policy committed to ethical values in the production, sharing and preservation of scholarly knowledge. The journal is guided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and the Directive on Scientific Research and Publication Ethics of the Council of Higher Education (YÖK), and expects all stakeholders — authors, reviewers, editors and the editorial board — to fulfil their ethical responsibilities in full. The principles set out below are the concrete expression of this framework.

1. Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

• Authors must submit only original works that make an academic contribution and have not been published previously; a submitted work may not be under review at another journal at the same time.
• The work is submitted with the written consent of all authors; adding or removing an author name or changing the order of authors after submission is possible only with the written permission of all authors. Gift authorship and ghost authorship are not accepted.
• An expanded version of a paper previously presented at a scholarly meeting may be considered, provided that this is clearly stated.
• An ORCID identifier is mandatory for all authors. The author contribution statement is provided within the article in accordance with the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) classification.
• Any funding support, conflict of interest and use of artificial intelligence tools must be clearly declared at the submission stage.
• For empirical research involving human participants or animals, ethics committee approval must have been obtained from the relevant institution; the approval document (committee name, date, number) must be uploaded as a supplementary file at the time of submission.
• Data fabrication, manipulation and selective reporting are not accepted; the data used must be properly sourced.
• Legal and academic responsibility for the views and findings expressed in the text rests with the author(s).

Important. For research requiring ethics committee approval, the document must be uploaded as a supplementary file at the time of submission; otherwise the manuscript will not enter the review process.

2. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

• An academic invited to review declines submissions that fall outside their area of expertise or in respect of which they have a conflict of interest, and informs the editor accordingly. Conflicts of interest include shared institutional affiliation, shared publication history, professional rivalry and family relationships.
• Reviewers keep confidential the information obtained during the review process; they do not share the submitted text with third parties, do not use it in academic discussions, and do not cite it until publication.
• Evaluation is based not on personal opinion but on concrete academic criteria: originality, theoretical and methodological soundness, use of sources, coherence of argument, and contribution to the field. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive feedback; dismissive, insulting or unsubstantiated statements are not accepted.
• The review report is delivered within the prescribed period; in case of delay the reviewer contacts the editor.
• Reviewers may not upload the submitted text to any artificial intelligence tool, nor generate their report using artificial intelligence.
• A reviewer who identifies a suspected ethical violation during evaluation (plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication, etc.) reports the matter to the editor immediately.

3. Ethical Responsibilities of Editors and Assistant Editors

• The editors of Cedid conduct publication processes in accordance with the principles of independence, impartiality and public benefit. Editorial decisions are taken independently of the publisher, external institutions and financial relationships.
• Submitted works are evaluated on the basis of their conformity with the journal’s scope and publication principles, academic quality, methodological reliability and ethical standards.
• The double-blind review process is conducted rigorously; the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another at any stage. Reviewer selection is based on subject expertise.
• An editor withdraws from the evaluation process for works of which they are the author, in relation to which they have an advisory relationship, or in which they otherwise have a conflict of interest; the process is transferred to another editor.
• Editors do not breach the confidentiality of the submitted text; they do not share it with third parties and do not cite it in academic discussions.
• Editors carry out checks for plagiarism, ethical violations and missing documentation, and where necessary issue a request for correction, a request for additional documents, or a decision of rejection.
• Decisions on retraction, correction and expression of concern are taken jointly by the editor and the editorial board in accordance with the principles set out in section 8.

4. Ethical Responsibilities of the Editorial Board

• The Editorial Board determines, develops and implements the general publication policies of the journal. Decisions are taken independently of the publisher and of external pressure.
• The Editorial Board bears responsibility for protecting the academic quality of the journal, encouraging original contributions, upholding ethical standards, and safeguarding the sound operation of copyright and intellectual property processes.
• Final authority for the investigation of and decision on suspected ethical violations rests with the Editorial Board; where necessary, the relevant COPE flowcharts are consulted.

5. Conflict of Interest

• Authors, reviewers and editors clearly declare, at the submission or evaluation stage, all relationships that may affect the evaluation process, including financial support, employment relationships, consultancy, joint publications, family ties and professional rivalry.
• Authors state any conflict of interest within the article under the heading “Conflict of Interest Statement”. Where no conflict of interest exists, this is also stated explicitly.
• Reviewers with a conflict of interest decline the review; editors with a conflict of interest withdraw from the process.
• An additional policy applies to submissions authored by members of the editorial team; for details see the Editorial Team Publishing Policy.

6. Artificial Intelligence Use Policy

• Attribution of authorship. Artificial intelligence tools (large language models, generative AI applications, etc.) cannot be listed as authors. Authorship requires accountability and intellectual responsibility; AI tools cannot assume this responsibility.
• Author declaration. Where artificial intelligence tools have been used in the preparation of the work for text generation, source summarisation, language editing, code generation, data analysis or similar purposes, the name and version of the tool used and the scope of its use must be clearly declared in a separate section within the article. Tools used solely for grammar checking or text formatting are exempt from this declaration.
• Obligations of reviewers and editors. Reviewers and editors may not upload submitted texts to any artificial intelligence tool or cloud-based language model. This restriction is essential in order to protect the confidentiality of submissions and intellectual property.
• Responsibility. Authors are solely responsible for the accuracy, originality and ethical compliance of content produced by any artificial intelligence tool they use. Violations arising from fabricated references, erroneous information or content derived from others are attributed directly to the author.

Important. Artificial intelligence tools may under no circumstances be listed as authors.

7. Plagiarism Screening

• All works submitted to the journal are subject to plagiarism screening through Crossref Similarity Check (iThenticate) at the preliminary review stage.
• The similarity report is not evaluated on the basis of the overall rate alone; the distribution of source-based matches, quotation management and citation quality are also examined. A high rate of matching with a single source may in itself constitute grounds for rejection.
• The acceptable overall similarity rate is below 20%, excluding the bibliography and direct quotations.
• Works in which ethical violations such as plagiarism, data fabrication, false authorship or concealment of a conflict of interest are identified after publication are retracted, and the relevant individuals and institutions are notified.

Attention. Works exceeding the acceptable similarity rate are not admitted to the evaluation process.

8. Retraction, Correction and Expression of Concern

Cedid conducts post-publication processes in accordance with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines.

• Retraction. A work in which a serious ethical violation is identified (plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, false authorship, etc.) is retracted from all versions of the journal. The retraction notice is permanently attached to the article metadata; the text remains accessible via the DOI but is marked with a “RETRACTED” stamp.
• Correction / Erratum. Where minor errors that do not affect the content are identified (typographical errors, citations, table data, etc.), a correction notice is published.
• Expression of Concern. Where serious doubt has arisen regarding the integrity of a work but no definitive decision has yet been reached, an Expression of Concern is published. Once the investigation is complete, the work is either retracted or the Expression of Concern is removed.

9. Reporting Ethical Violations and the Complaints Process

• Where a breach of scholarly ethics is identified (plagiarism, unwarranted authorship, conflict of interest, missing ethics committee documentation, etc.), the relevant individual or institution may contact the journal editorial office at editor@cediddergi.com.
• Once a report is received, the investigation is conducted in accordance with the relevant COPE flowcharts. The process comprises preliminary examination, obtaining the views of the parties concerned, seeking expert opinion where necessary, and a final decision.
• The anonymity of the person making the report is protected if requested. Where a report is found to be unfounded or made in bad faith, the journal may take further action in respect of the person making it.
• The complaint investigation is completed within a reasonable period; the outcome is notified in writing to both the person making the report and the party under investigation. Where an ethical violation is confirmed, sanctions may include retraction, correction, notification of the author’s institution and, where necessary, a ban on submission to the journal for a specified period.

10. Open Access, Copyright and Licence

Cedid follows a non-commercial open access policy. All published works are accessible in full text through the journal website without any restriction or delay. No article processing charge, submission fee or review fee is charged to authors, and no royalty payment is made to authors.

All works published in the journal are made available to readers under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence.

Detailed Framework

• Open Access Policy
• Copyright
• Pricing Policy