Türkçe

Notes for Authors

Manuscript Submission

In Spiritual Psychology and Counseling (SPC);

Contributors submitting their work to SPC should be informed that articles should include the following:

  • Quantitative, qualitative, or mixed research methods,
  • Comprehensive literature reviews, meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis,
  • Model proposals, clinical experimental research model, or original writings of similar quality.

Authors must follow the basic codes of ethics when conducting research. They are expected to comply with the principles of research and publication ethics, including honesty, transparency, and respect for research participants. The principles of honesty, transparency, and confidentiality are particularly emphasized. Authors must ensure the originality of their work and properly cite the work of others. They should also avoid duplicate submissions to multiple journals simultaneously. This practice is considered unethical and is strictly prohibited. Data fabrication (inventing data) and falsification (manipulating research data, images, or results) are serious violations of research ethics and will lead to immediate rejection or retraction.

Editorial and Review Process

SPC gives priority to current studies using advanced research and statistical methods and techniques. The Journal’s main criteria for publication are original contribution to the field and competency in methodology.

The SPC Editorial processes strictly adhere to the guidelines outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, ICMJE, and COPE frameworks. Although all these frameworks are important, COPE recommendations, due to their concrete and dynamic nature, essentially form the main roadmap for SPC Editors.

Manuscripts are first assessed by the Editorial Board for purpose, topic, content, presentation style, and mechanics of writing. The Editors emphasize that SPC articles should not include studies based on very frequently used measurement tools or on research topics that have been overly examined, unless they propose an innovative approach to the topic in question.

Flow of the Review Procedure

  • After the submission, authors are sent a confirmation of receipt by email.
  • Manuscripts are evaluated by the Editorial Board following the submission.
  • A plagiarism check is conducted by a plagiarism detection software right after the submission. In some cases, there can be instances of plagiarism which cannot be detected by the software packages such as in translated pieces. SPC reviewers are required to report these kinds of infringements to the respective editor.
  • Manuscripts failing the originality check are rejected without further scrutiny.
  • Manuscripts that meet the criteria for SPC proceed to the next stage, which is reviewer evaluation.
  • Manuscripts that do not meet the SPC criteria are notified of the decision with the relevant justification for rejection.
  • Receipt of manuscripts and Editorial Board decisions may take approximately two weeks.
  • Manuscripts are sent to two specialists in the relevant field.
  • If the reviewers differ in opinion about the quality of your work, the paper will be referred to a third reviewer.
  • The Editorial Board and referee reviews take approximately 2-3 months to complete. This time may be extended depending on the availability of referees in the area that the manuscript is related.
  • Reviewer reports are kept confidential. We adopt a double-blind peer-review evaluating process.
  • Authors must be attentive to the criticisms, suggestions, and corrections of the referees and the Editorial Board. In case of disagreement with the reports, authors must explain why they do not agree with the points made by the reviewers.
  • For more details of the review process, visit the Notes for Reviewers page.
  • There are three possible results for a manuscript:
    • Acceptance with minor or major revisions
    • Reject and Resubmit process
    • Rejection

Manuscripts go through the following stages once accepted for publication:

  • Reviewer reports and Editorial Board reports are sent to the author.
  • Authors revise their manuscripts according to the reports, and the Editorial Board reviews the revised manuscripts before they advance to the proofreading stage.
  • Authors are sent the proofreading notes.
  • When proofreading is complete, manuscripts advance to the formatting and pagination stage.
  • Following the pagination process, authors are asked to conduct a final check of their manuscripts.
  • After completion of these processes, manuscripts are initially published on OnlineFirst. As each article is assigned a DOI, this version could be treated as the authentic version.
  • The manuscripts are published in an issue relevant to the planning and workload of the journal.
  • It is the responsibility of the authors to have the articles proofread. In the event that the manuscripts are accepted for publication, the corresponding authors are asked to document that their final version has passed through proofreading from a competent service.
  • Manuscript submission and all communications are done through the Dergipark journal management system: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/spiritualpc

If there is a detection of plagiarism in already published SPC articles; SPC editorial board may take necessary measures by adherence to the international ethical standards of Publication Manual of American Psychological Association (APA Style; 7th edition) and “COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors” (https://publicationethics.org/files/2008%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf). The standard action is retraction. A retraction notice clearly stating the reason (e.g., ‘Plagiarism of content from [Source]’) will be published and linked to the article. The article PDF will be watermarked ‘RETRACTED’. Based on “COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors” other measures such as informing the affiliated institution, or employers.

Ethical Considerations

Our Editorial Board adopts the Declaration of Helsinki (https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/), which can be defined as the standard with the largest consensus regarding human participants. Protecting the participants from any harm is the most important basic principle. Participants or their legal representatives must have voluntarily participated in the research. Informed consent should be obtained, and if some information was hidden from the participants for research purposes, the reasons for this should be clearly stated.

It is essential that the participant information be anonymous, in cases where it is necessary to reveal the photographs or identities of the participants, their written consent must be found and submitted to the editors. Participants must be informed about their rights, including the right to withdraw. In communities with oral traditions, documented verbal consent must be obtained in the presence of an impartial witness (e.g., community leader, health worker). Authors must comply with relevant data protection regulations (e.g., GDPR, HIPAA) governing the collection, storage, and anonymization of participant data, especially sensitive personal information.

Ethics committee approval or other equivalent registration must be obtained for studies using human participant data sent to be published in SPC, this approval must be stated and documented in the article. These articles should include the statement regarding the compliance with Research and Publication Ethics and the information of the relevant ethics committee decision. In research involving deception, authors must justify its necessity and describe appropriate debriefing procedures. In studies involving vulnerable populations or communities, researchers must obtain both individual and community consent where appropriate.

Authors must avoid discriminatory, exploitative, or culturally insensitive practices. Researchers working with culturally diverse or marginalized populations must take extra care to ensure cultural respect and ethical validity. In communities with oral traditions or low literacy, verbal or witnessed consent is acceptable. Studies involving Indigenous or collective cultures should seek approval from community leaders in addition to individual consent. Researchers must collaborate with local institutions to avoid extractive “helicopter research,” and culturally adapted instruments should be used when necessary.

All manuscripts submitted to SPC are checked by a leading commercial online plagiarism detection software package. Similarity analysis reports are evaluated by the handling editor. If the similarity analysis indicates plagiarism or any similar misconducts with respect to publication ethics (self-plagiarism, duplication or redundant publication etc.); manuscripts are rejected without being considered for further review processes.

In some cases, there can be instances of plagiarism which cannot be detected by the software packages such as in translated pieces. SPC reviewers are required to report these kinds of infringements to the respective editor. If there is a detection of plagiarism in already published SPC articles; SPC editorial board may take necessary measures by adherence to the international ethical standards of Publication Manual of American Psychological Association (APA Style; 7th edition) and “COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors” (https://publicationethics.org/files/2008%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf). The standard action is retraction. A retraction notice clearly stating the reason (e.g., ‘Plagiarism of content from [Source]’) will be published and linked to the article. The article PDF will be watermarked ‘RETRACTED’. Based on “COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors” other measures such as informing the affiliated institution, or employers.
All submissions are screened using a commercial plagiarism detection software İntihal.Net (via DergiPark). Manuscripts with over 15% similarity (excluding references) may be subject to editorial investigation. SPC prohibits plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, and redundant publication. Serious violations may lead to retraction and institutional notification. Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original and that proper citations are provided where the work of others is used.
Conflicts of Interest. Authors can request to exclude reviewers with perceived competing interests from refereeing their paper, but are asked to provide additional information to support such a request. The Editors will respect these requests provided that they do not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of an article. Authors, reviewers, and editors must submit formal conflict of interest declarations. Conflict of Interest. There may be conflicts of interest in various ways related to the work. Various conflicts of interest may arise in many situations, such as the researcher’s financial relationships, paid assignments, or personal matters. These conflicts must be reported to the editor by the authors. However, a conflict of interest may also apply to Editors and reviewers. The following practices are carried out in this regard:

The Editors avoid sending manuscripts to particular reviewers under such circumstances:

• If the reviewer has co-published an article with the author(s) before,
• If the reviewer has assisted the author(s) in proofreading their manuscripts,
• If the reviewer has had problems with the author(s) before,
• If the reviewer will benefit financially from publication of the article,
• If the reviewer works in the same institution (same department in the university) as the author(s).
• Since the Editors may not be aware of all the circumstances specified above, reviewers are required to inform the Editors of such situations that may prevent them from being objective in their evaluations.

Editors should handle all manuscripts without any bias or conflict of interest. Examples requiring editor recusal include handling a manuscript from a recent collaborator (within past 3 years), a close personal friend, a current PhD student/supervisor, or an author affiliated with the same small department. They must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and ensure a fair review process. Editors must recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts where they have recent collaborations, personal relationships, or institutional affiliations that may constitute a conflict of interest.

Authorship 

SPC Editorial adopts the 4 criteria put forward by the ”International Committee of Medical Journal Editors” (ICMJE) to define the source of authorship.

1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors. Editors are obliged to follow “Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors” (COPE) guidelines when they doubt misconduct on authorship such as gift authorship (when a name posited as author has no substantial contribution) or ghost authorship (when a researcher deserving authorship is not listed).
Ghost authorship and gift authorship are strictly prohibited. Example of Unacceptable Practice: Listing a senior department head who had no role in the research (Gift Authorship) OR omitting a statistician who performed crucial data analysis (Ghost Authorship). Acknowledgements must clearly state the names of contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship. All accepted manuscripts must include an ‘Author Contributions’ section detailing each author’s specific role using standardized roles (e.g., Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft). The CRediT taxonomy is recommended.

AI Use 

Authors must disclose any use of AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Grammarly) in manuscript preparation, data analysis, or interpretation. Examples requiring disclosure: ‘ChatGPT was used to draft the initial literature review section,’ ‘An AI tool (Name) was used to analyze qualitative interview transcripts.’ AI-generated content must be verified for accuracy, and AI may not replace human judgment in critical tasks. Examples of unacceptable use: Using AI to generate original research data without validation, submitting AI-generated images without disclosure, or using AI to write the majority of the manuscript without substantial human input.

Data Availability and Reproducibility 

SPC encourages authors to share the data underlying their findings to promote transparency. Where feasible, include a ‘Data Availability Statement’ specifying where supporting data can be found (e.g., public repository like Figshare, supplementary files, or available upon request with conditions). Restrictions (e.g., privacy, ethical) must be justified. Code used for analysis should also be made available where appropriate.
The SPC’s policy on plagiarism and other ethical violations can be found at: https://spiritualpc.net/ethicalguidelines/

Other Infringements Scientific misconduct in research and non-empirical publications include, but is not limited to, dubious authorship, fabrication; falsification of data, including fraudulent manipulation of images; intentional non-disclosure of relationships and activities; and plagiarism. Each instance of infringement requires an individual assessment by editors and reviewers. When scientific misconduct is suspected or concerns arise about the conduct or integrity of the study described in submitted or published papers, the editor should start appropriate procedures detailed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), consider notifying agencies, leaders or employers, and raise concerns until the results of these procedures are available and suspend the publication procedures if any. If the procedure involves an investigation at the authors’ institution, the editor should follow the results of this investigation and if necessary, inform the readers about the results and, if the investigation reveals misconduct, announce the rejection of the article. There may be cases where no infringement has been identified, the correspondence of letters to the editor regarding the process can be shared with readers.

Retraction/Withdrawal Policy

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) support an open and uniform method for post-publication retractions. As per COPE’s Retraction Guidelines, the retraction serves as a means to rectify the literature and inform readers about significant concerns regarding the validity or reliability of an article. Retracted articles are mentioned to stay accessible online, clearly marked with their retracted status. Retraction notices will clearly state the reason (e.g., ‘Plagiarism,’ ‘Fabricated Data’), identify the retracted article, be published promptly, be freely accessible, and be linked bidirectionally to the retracted article.
SPC maintains a robust Retraction/Withdrawal Policy, guided by editorial board policies and legal requirements concerning defamation, copyright infringement, double publishing, and plagiarism. While our commitment is to keep published articles unaltered, there are exceptional circumstances where withdrawal or deletion may be necessary. ‘Retraction’ applies to published articles with significant errors/misconduct. ‘Withdrawal’ applies to manuscripts under review removed at the author’s request before acceptance (e.g., critical error discovered by authors). Editors, authors, or their institutions can initiate withdrawal requests, which undergo thorough editorial review to assess legitimacy. Editors ensure transparency by informing readers of retractions or corrections through appropriate notices.

The SPC’s policy on plagiarism and other ethical violations can be found at: https://spiritualpc.net/ethicalguidelines/