Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics

General Principles

The sinecine: Journal of Film Studies editors are responsible for ensuring a smooth publication and review process. Articles submitted to the journal go through an initial review, after which those deemed suitable are sent out to external reviewers for evaluation. Articles deemed unsuitable for publication at any point in this process are returned to their authors. The editors may consult with members of the Editorial Board and Advisory Board about decisions pertaining to the publication and review process.

Editors and reviewers evaluate articles submitted to the journal solely on the basis of their scholarly merit and adherence to academic standards. The journal is committed to an unbiased review process carried out without discrimination on the basis of race, religion, language, ethnicity, gender, politics, worldview, class, rank, title, institutional affiliation (or lack thereof), or any other grounds. Authors, reviewers, and editors are responsible for disclosing and taking the necessary steps to avoid any potential conflicts of interest that may affect any aspect of the publication and review process (including an article’s submission and review, the editorial process, and communication between authors, reviewers, and editors).

The journal does not endorse any commercial products mentioned or discussed in the articles it publishes, nor does it vouch for the veracity of any claims made about them. All authors who have received outside funding to support their work are obligated to disclose the funding body and the nature of its support in their articles. Authors with financial connections of any sort, whether direct or indirect, with companies, products, persons, or other subjects discussed in their articles are obligated to include a note disclosing the nature of that connection and declaring that they have no commercial interest at stake.

Aside from the editors and assistant editors of the journal, none of the members of the Editorial or Advisory boards have any knowledge of authors’ identities. The editors and assistant editors will not share any information about authors with third parties; but when necessary, they may share information with members of the Editorial Board.

The material published in the journal is protected intellectual property. Readers of the journal may make use of this material in their own work or share it on the condition that they provide a full reference to the source of the material. None of the material published in the journal may be utilized for commercial purposes or used in ways that violate any legal or technological restrictions placed on the use of that material by other rightsholders.

Any author using quotations, excerpts, tables, pictures, etc. from material previously published elsewhere is obligated to obtain written permission from the publishers and authors of that material and to indicate in the article that he or she has been granted this permission. Responsibility for securing all necessary permissions belongs solely to the author or authors.

Authors are also responsible for obtaining legal permission for the use of any images that are subject to copyright. The journal is not responsible for any problems resulting from an author’s failure to obtain all necessary permissions.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their work adheres to all relevant scholarly and ethical rules and standards.

The Review Process

sinecine uses a double-blind review process to evaluate all articles sent out for peer review, meaning that reviewers do not have access to the names or other identifying information of the authors whose work they are reviewing and that authors do not have access to the names or other identifying information of those reviewing their work. To maintain the integrity of the review process, authors should anonymize their work before submitting it for review by removing any information in their work that may reveal their identity to reviewers; this includes institutional affiliations, personal references to earlier work by the author (“my article”), lengthy “thank yous,” and the like.

All articles sent out for review are identified by the editor as the private property of the author, and all communication relating to these articles is entirely confidential. Reviewers and members of the Editorial Board may not discuss these articles on any public platforms or in any way that is open to the public. Reviewers may not make copies of the articles for personal use and may not share the articles with others without the permission of the editor. Reviewer feedback may not be published or otherwise made publicly available without the permission of the author and editor, though in certain situations the editor may decide to share the comments of one reviewer with other reviewers evaluating the same article.

In the first stage of the review process, all articles submitted to the journal are evaluated by the editors. During this initial evaluation, the editors reject any articles they deem to fall outside the journal’s aims and scope, to suffer from excessive problems of language or expression, critical errors in scholarship, or a lack or originality, or to otherwise fail to meet the journal’s editorial standards. Articles rejected at this stage of the review process may not be resubmitted for review without substantial revision. Before an article is sent out for peer review, editors may recommend or request that authors make certain revisions to their work. Once the initial evaluation is complete, articles are sent out for review to two experts in appropriate fields. These reviewers are selected from scholars whose areas of expertise and research match those of the article and who hold a PhD in a relevant field. The journal’s editorial policy places no value on an author’s academic title and rank, and these do not affect the review process in any way.

Reviewers are expected to review articles sent to them within 30 days. In cases of a disagreement between two reviewers over an article’s merits, the article is sent out to a third reviewer. To be accepted for publication, an article must obtain the recommendation of two reviewers. Articles that receive negative reviews from two reviewers are rejected and removed entirely from the review process. Articles that receive one negative review and one review calling for substantial revision may, at the editors’ discretion, be rejected without further review, or else may be returned to their authors with the option to revise and resubmit. In cases where an article is revised and resubmitted, reviewers are asked to evaluate any revisions made to the article and to recommend any further revisions they deem necessary. This process may extend through multiple revisions of the article.

sinecine is committed to maintaining the fairness and impartiality of the review process for all articles submitted to the journal, in accordance with international ethical standards. The editors should therefore be informed of any possible conflict of interest on the part of authors or reviewers concerning an article’s submission or subsequent review.

All articles submitted to sinecine are checked for similarity against previously published work using plagiarism-detection software. The software detects instances of similarities without appropriate citations and generates a similarity report for the Editorial Board. On the basis of this similarity report, the Editorial Board may request certain additional revisions from authors or, in cases of suspected plagiarism, may reject an article entirely. The final decision about whether to publish an article rests with the Editorial Board.

Code of Ethics and Associated Responsibilities

sinecine is committed to upholding the ethical standards and fulfilling the duties and responsibilities set out in the Turkish Board of Higher Education’s Guidelines on Research and Publication Ethics and in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)’s Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. The journal expects its authors and reviewers to abide by those same principles. Authors and editors looking for advice on how to deal with frequently encountered issues are advised to consult the relevant guidelines on COPE’s website.

Author Responsibilities

sinecine expects authors submitting material to the journal to adhere to the following principles:

  • All submissions to the journal are expected to be the authors’ own original work. Authors must offer full and appropriately formatted references for any material they quote and for any material they use that is not their own.
  • Persons who have not contributed in a substantial way to the creation of the intellectual content of a piece submitted to the journal should not be listed as authors.
  • All authors submitting work for publication in the journal must inform the editors of any potential conflict of interest that might arise in relation to their work during the process of that work’s review and publication.
  • During the evaluation process, the journal’s editors and Editorial Board may ask to view the raw data upon which an author has based his or her submission; authors should be prepared to supply this data if requested.
  • Authors are responsible for obtaining the necessary rights and permissions for all data they use and all research and analysis they carry out; they are expected to respect the rights of their research subjects and abide by all relevant codes of ethics pertaining to human and animal research. Any study that fails to obtain the necessary rights, permissions, and ethics-committee approvals may be rejected at the journal’s discretion.
  • In the event that at any point in the review process an author discovers a mistake or error in a study he or she has submitted to the journal, the author must inform the editors or publishers of this at once. In such cases, the author is expected to work with the editors to rectify the problem or, if that is not possible, to withdraw the study from consideration for publication.
  • Authors may not submit an article to multiple journals at the same time. Once an author has submitted an article to a journal, he or she must wait until the conclusion of that journal’s review process before submitting it to another journal for consideration. As a matter of policy, sinecine does not publish material that has previously been published in another journal.
  • Once an article has been submitted to the journal and has entered the review process, no changes may be made to the number, name, or order of that article’s listed authors.

Reviewer Responsibilities

All articles submitted to sinecine are evaluated through double-blind review. Reviewers have no communication with authors and no knowledge of their identities. All reviewer comments, recommendations, and other feedback is forwarded to authors via the journal’s management system. During the evaluation process, reviewers’ completed evaluation forms and comments on submitted articles are forwarded to authors by the editors. The journal expects its reviewers to adhere to the following principles:

  • Reviewers should only ever evaluate articles within their own area of expertise; they should reject any requests to review an article they deem to fall beyond that area.
  • Reviews should confidential and impartial.
  • Reviewers should inform the editors and recuse themselves in cases of a potential conflict of interest.
  • For the purposes of confidentiality, reviewers should delete and destroy the material they review after the evaluation process is complete. They may use only the final, published versions of any such material.
  • Reviews should be objective and limited solely to the article under evaluation. Considerations of nationality, gender, religious belief, political conviction, and economic interest have no place in and will not be allowed to affect the review process.
  • All feedback should be delivered in a polite and constructive manner. Reviewers should refrain from saying anything likely to be interpreted as antagonistic, offensive, or disrespectful.
  • Reviewers should complete their evaluations for all work they accept in a timely fashion and no later than the stated deadline.
  • Reviewers may consult with the editors where necessary during the evaluation process.

Editor Responsibilities

sinecine’s editors are expected to adhere to the standards laid out in the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Their responsibilities and duties include the following:

  • Editors should work to meet the intellectual needs of the journal’s readers and authors and are expected to examine carefully all complaints from authors, reviewers, and readers and to respond to such complaints in a helpful and informative way.
  • Editors should strive to promote the journal’s ongoing development.
  • Editors should implement measures to raise the quality of the material the journal publishes.
  • Editors should support intellectual freedom.
  • Editors should always protect intellectual property rights and uphold the highest ethical standards.
  • Editors should be open and transparent about any corrections or addenda the journal may be required to publish; when necessary, the Editorial Board should be informed of such cases.
  • Editors are responsible for overseeing the journal’s double-blind review process and for ensuring that all work submitted to the journal is reviewed in a fair, impartial, and timely manner.

The Relationship Between Editors and Authors

  • Editors evaluate articles submitted to the journal on the basis of their scholarly significance, originality, and clarity of expression, the soundness of their arguments and analysis, and their compatibility with the aims and scope of the journal. These are the criteria upon which an article’s suitability for publication should be assessed.
  • Articles deemed suitable by the editors in their initial evaluation then pass on to the peer-review stage of the evaluation process.
  • At this stage of the process, absent any glaring problems with a piece submitted to the journal, editors should generally defer to reviewer recommendations as to the merits of an article.
  • New editors should not reverse or alter operational and editorial decisions made by previous editors without a compelling reason.
  • Editors should be clear, helpful, and informative in their communication with authors.
  • Editors must protect authors’ personal data.
  • Editors should treat seriously and adopt a constructive attitude toward any convincing critiques of material published by the journal, while also giving authors a chance to respond to such critiques.
  • The editorial process continues until an article is published. In addition to any changes to an article a reviewer may recommend, editors may request changes from authors until the final stage of the process.

The Relationship Between Editors and Reviewers

Editors have the following responsibilities and duties in their relationship with reviewers:

  • Reviewers should be asked to review only articles that fall within their own field of expertise.
  • Editors are obliged to provide reviewers with any information necessary for them to carry out the review process effectively.
  • Editors must ensure that there is no conflict of interest between a reviewer and the author whose work is being reviewed.
  • Editors must maintain the confidentiality of reviewers’ identities to preserve the integrity of the double-blind review process.
  • Editors should encourage reviewers to use impartial, scholarly, and objective language in their reviews.
  • Reviewers should be evaluated on the quality of their work and their adherence to deadlines.
  • Editors should develop strategies and policies to improve reviewer performance.
  • Editors should take the necessary steps to expand the pool of reviewers and keep it up to date.
  • Editors should ensure against reviews that do not conform to the standards of professional and scholarly etiquette.
  • In the event that a review contains mistakes, inconsistencies, or problematic guidance, editors should ensure that reviewers promptly make any necessary changes.

The Relationship Between Editors and the Editorial Board

Editors should keep the members of the Editorial Board informed about the journal’s editorial policies and update them on any new developments. They should educate new members of the Editorial Board about the journal’s editorial policies and provide whatever information they might require. Additional responsibilities include the following:

  • Editors should ensure that Editorial Board members evaluate work submitted to the journal in an impartial and independent fashion.
  • Editors should ensure that new members selected for the Editorial Board are chosen on the basis of their suitability for the role and their potential to contribute.
  • When forwarding material submitted to the journal to members of the Editorial Board for review, editors should ensure that all such material is sent to members with requisite expertise in an appropriate field.
  • Editors are expected to work closely with the members of the Editorial Board and to maintain an open line of communication with them.
  • Editors are expected to organize meetings to discuss the journal’s development and its editorial policies at regular intervals.
  • The Editorial Board determines the topics of Special Issues of the journal.

Author Guidelines

sinecine: Journal of Film Studies publishes articles in Turkish and English. In addition to these articles, each issue of the journal may include translations of articles selected by the editors or Editorial Board. The journal also publishes short reviews (2,000–4,000 words) of films, books, festivals, etc. Articles submitted to the journal should ideally be around 8,000 words in length (and never exceed 10,000 words), including notes and references. Explanatory notes in articles should be numbered serially and placed as footnotes at the bottom of the appropriate page in the text. All article submissions should be accompanied by an abstract of 150–200 words, in Turkish and English, and five keywords. Submissions should be saved as an MS Word document (.doc or .docx) and submitted electronically using this link. Articles should use 12-point Times New Roman font and 1.5 spacing; footnotes should be in 10-point font and single spaced. Article submissions should include a separate page with the author’s name, a brief author biography, the title of the article, and the author’s email and physical address. None of this information will be sent to reviewers. On matters of style and the formatting of references, authors should consult the most recent edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.

 Open Access

sinecine has adopted an open-access policy for all of the material it publishes.