Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

Ulusal Ceteris Paribus Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi (UCPEAD - The National Ceteris Paribus Journal of Economic Research) focuses on academic articles covering economics and its related disciplines.
Published in Turkish, the journal aims to bridge scientific advancements, studies, and projects in the field of economics to its readership.
Released four times a year, the journal operates on an open-access basis and publishes articles under the CC-BY license, fostering the dissemination and utilization of knowledge.
UCPEAD has taken into account the guidelines and policies published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as open access in establishing ethical duties and responsibilities.
In accordance with the ethical rules of science, all those who have various duties and responsibilities in this process (authors, researchers, publishers, reviewers, editors, and editors in various fields) must adhere to these rules. Within the scope of publication ethics of UCPEAD, its interested parties are expected to maintain the following ethical responsibilities at all stages of the process.

Responsibilities of Authors
* Every study submitted to UCPEAD is considered original by the author/authors. It is impossible to submit a paper to our journal that was previously published elsewhere, to submit a paper to more than one journal at the same time, or to make changes in the authors' responsibilities (add, delete, change the order of authors) after submitting a paper to our journal. If the author/authors use the work of other researchers (language, ideas, graphs, drawings, etc.), they must cite these citations fully and correctly according to the rules of the journal. Therefore, all authors cited in the study are responsible for this situation. It is unethical not to mention the names of people who contributed to the study or to mention the names of people who did not contribute. If there are situations in the research that might cause a conflict of interest, they should be mentioned.
* While preparing their studies, author/authors must ground their conclusions on scientific data. Interpreting data other than scientific data, providing data without a source is a violation of ethical standards, and behaviors such as altering, deleting, and manipulating some of the data undermine the author's credibility. In addition, the author/authors should avoid personal denigration assessments and should demonstrate a style that is fully consistent with the scientific data.
* Those who did not help the study from intellectual side should not be listed among the authors In case of an unfavorable situation, the editors of the journal may request the original data from the author/authors during the publication process. In such a case, the relevant documents should be submitted to the editorial board and the advisory board. If subjects are used in the study, documents must be submitted showing that their consent and necessary approvals have been obtained for the used data and analysis/study. In addition, the author/authors can make changes to the study by contacting the editor when a problem is noticed early on.

 Responsibilities of Reviewers
* UCPEAD uses a double-blind peer-review system. The review process is confidential, and this information cannot be shared with third parties. Authors and reviewers cannot know each other and cannot directly discuss the article. Communication between the reviewer/reviewers and the author/authors is done through the editors. The journal's Web site is used for communication.
* Two reviewers, who are experts in their fields, are assigned to each study submitted to the journal, who evaluate the study according to scientific evidence within the 30-day period given to them and act impartially. In case of positive or negative results, the study is sent to a third reviewer.
* If a situation arises that is not in accordance with scientific ethics or a conflict of interest in the study, the reviewer/reviewers should report it to the editor. In addition, reviewer/reviewers should use an appropriate style in their evaluations and avoid comments containing insults, slander, backbiting, etc.

Responsibilities of Editors and Field Editors
* The editor/editors are responsible for keeping the peer review process of the articles confidential; not passing it on to third parties; protecting the intellectual property rights of published articles; acting impartially with respect to works uploaded to the journal; protecting the rights of the author/authors and the journal in possible violations; investigating if it is claimed that an article submitted to the journal is plagiarized, that the same article is going to be published or published elsewhere, and not publishing the article if the allegations are true.
When any of the journal's editors want to publish an article, their authorization in the journal is frozen and is not activated until the publication process is completed. This process is carried out entirely in accordance with ethical principles, taking into account the double-blind peer-review system.

Publication policy
* All activities in the publication process of UCPEAD are carried out at
* The journal uses a system of blind reviewing. To ensure unbiased evaluation, information such as author, institution, etc. is not included in articles sent to reviewers.
* Articles submitted to the journal are first analyzed for compliance with the rules of publication. Articles that conform to the rules of publication are first evaluated by an editor. Articles that have passed the editor's preliminary evaluation are forwarded to the field editors and sent by them to two reviewers who are experts in their fields. For articles that have received a positive conclusion from both reviewers and require corrections, the editors contact the authors according to the conclusions of the reviewers. The authors are asked to make the corrections requested by the reviewers and to resubmit the article within 15 days at the latest.
* Articles that received negative feedbacks from both reviewers are reported to the author with the reviewers' reviews attached. In the case of a positive conclusion of one reviewer and a negative conclusion of the other, the opinion of the third reviewer is requested. Articles are accepted/rejected according to the opinion of the third reviewer.
* Reviewers are asked to evaluate articles within 30 days. If the 30-day deadline expires, a reminder message is sent and an additional 10-day deadline is given. After this period, another reviewer is assigned to replace the reviewer who has not responded to the evaluation.
* Articles accepted by reviewers are uploaded back into the system by the authors within 15 days at the latest by adding the necessary edits and information about the authors (name, surname, institution information, e-mail, ORCID). Articles uploaded to the system are sent to Language Editors appropriate to the content of the article. After the Language Editors have completed their control, the study is typeset and assigned a number.

Information on Research Requiring Ethics Committee Approval
The researches that require such approvals are listed below:
* All types of research conducted using qualitative or quantitative approaches that require data collection from participants using survey, interview, focus group, observational, experimental methods,
* The use of humans and animals (including materials/data) for experimental or other scientific purposes,
* Human clinical research,
* Research on animals,
* Retrospective studies in accordance with the Law on the Protection of Personal Data.
In cases where Ethics Committee Approval is required, the name of the Ethics Committee and the reference number, if available, should be included in the report. If it is reported that the research is exempt from Ethics Committee Approval, the reason should be explained to the journal editor.