Ethical Principles and Editorial Policy

•  Protection of Personal Data: The personal data of real persons in the studies evaluated in Felsefix are protected under the Law on the Protection of Personal Data. No information belonging to the author is shared with third parties and institutions.
•  Pricing: Felsefix journal does not charge a fee at any stage of the article acceptance, evaluation and publication processes.
•  Plagiarism Check: All works accepted to Felsefix are checked through plagiarism programs (iThenticate). The matches resulting from the plagiarism check are examined and a plagiarism report is created. Studies with a similarity rate above 20% are not accepted for publication.
•  Preliminary Evaluation and Blind Review: The editors of the journal review each manuscript submitted before the deadline for acceptance of manuscripts for compliance with the aims, principles and rules of the journal. Authors who submit their work to the journal are deemed to have accepted that their work has not been published elsewhere before or has not been sent elsewhere for publication. Articles that do not comply with the aims, principles and rules of the journal are not accepted to the journal. For articles that are suitable for the journal, the Editor-in-Chief will work with the Associate Editors, who will assign a field editor or referee to the article. Once appointed, Associate Editors may decide to reject an article, continue the peer review process, or request revisions before further peer review. Manuscripts that successfully pass the pre-evaluation and plagiarism check are sent to at least two referees for the peer review process. If one of the referee evaluations is positive and one is negative, the article is submitted to a third referee for evaluation. Articles that receive two positive reports are published with the decision of the editorial board. In editorial processes, the information of authors and referees is kept confidential to the parties. 
•  DOI Number: The Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is an access address that allows the identification of works published in electronic media and access to the official and original copy. After the publication process, Felsefix will assign DOI numbers to the accepted works and secure the official information of the work in the electronic environment.
•  Copyright and Permissions: Felsefix does not accept any responsibility for copyright issues. Authors accept responsibility in this regard and are responsible for providing and checking the copyright and usage permissions of the sources and materials they use in advance. The responsibility for the works published in the journal belongs to the authors. All authors, when their articles are published after passing the editorial and referee process, accept that the copyright belongs to themselves, open source access and the terms of CC BY-NC- 4.0.
•  Archiving Policy: All articles published in this journal are archived on the journal website, https://dergiplatformu.com servers, and ICI World of Journals. The Publisher grants aturhors permission to use the final published version of an article (publisher's PDF) for self-archiving (on the author's poersonal website) and/or archiving in an institutional repository after publication. Authors may self-archive their articles in public and/or commercial subject-based repositories. There is no embargo period, but the published source must be cited, and a link tu the journal's homepage or the article's DOI must be provided. Authors may download the article as a PDF file. Authors may send copies of the article to colleagues without any embargo. The publisher permits all versions of the article (submitted version, accepted version, published version) to be stored in an institutional or other repository of the author's choice without embargo.
•  Publication Ethics: Felsefix adopts the policies and follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which is recognized as an international standard on publication ethics in all processes carried out and in the context of Author, Reviewer, Editor, Publisher and Reader responsibilities.
•  Ethics Committee Approval Certificate: If the studies submitted to Felsefix journal foresee the collection of data from humans through surveys, interviews, focus group studies, experiments, etc. and their use for experimental or other scientific purposes, it is mandatory to obtain an "Ethics Committee Approval Certificate" from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the relevant institution before the application.
• Editorial Article: Once a year, an editorial article containing the evaluations and recommendations of any member of the editorial board, including the chief editor and assistants, regarding publications and discussions related to the journal's subject area shall be published with the positive evaluation and majority vote of the journal's editorial board.

• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

  Authorship and Responsibility:
  Under no circumstances should generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools be designated as authors or co-authors of a scholarly manuscript. The authors bear full responsibility for the content, accuracy, and originality of the submitted work. The utilization of AI tools does not absolve authors from their scientific, ethical, and intellectual responsibilities. The journal strictly prohibits the use of AI in generating fake authorship or falsifying identity.
  
  Transparency and Declaration:
  Any use of AI tools during the research, writing, or processes must be explicitly and transparently disclosed within the manuscript. This disclosure should be included in the "Methods" or "Acknowledgements" section, as appropriate. The statement must clearly specify the full names and version numbers of the AI tools used, alongside a detailed explanation of how and for what purposes these tools were employed.
  
  Generative AI Usage Policies for Editors
  Confidentiality and Intellectual Property Responsibility:
  Editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, associated files, images, or any related information to AI tools. Safeguarding the confidentiality of submitted content and protecting the intellectual property rights of authors are fundamental responsibilities of editors.
  
  Use of AI in the Editorial Evaluation Process:
  Editors may utilize AI tools in specific aspects of the editorial workflow—such as initial eligibility screening or reviewer selection—only with the explicit approval of journal management. Any such use of AI must be transparently communicated to the authors.
  
  Management of Suspected Misuse:
  In cases of uncertainty or concern regarding the use of AI, editors should engage in transparent communication with the authors and, where appropriate, request supporting evidence. Matters requiring further scrutiny should be escalated to journal management for formal review.
  
  Evaluation of Authors’ Declarations on AI Use:
  Editors are expected to carefully review authors’ statements concerning the use of AI tools and request clarification or additional information when necessary. It is the editors’ responsibility to assess whether the declared use of AI complies with the journal’s established policies.
  
  Staying Informed on Policy Developments:
  Editors should remain informed about ongoing developments in generative AI technologies and ensure they are up to date with the journal’s evolving policies on AI usage.
  
  Generative AI Usage Policies for Reviewers
  Detection of AI Use:
  Reviewers are encouraged to identify any potential undisclosed use of AI within the manuscripts they assess and to notify the editors if such cases are suspected. Nonetheless, any such assessments should rely on clear, objective evaluation standards.
  
  Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibility:
  Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts or any associated documents submitted for peer review to generative AI platforms under any circumstances. Doing so could compromise confidentiality and potentially infringe on intellectual property rights.Evaluation processes should be carried out using the reviewer’s own level of expertise and knowledge.
  
  Evaluation Ethics:
  Reviewers should assess authors' use of AI impartially, ensuring that personal opinions or biases do not interfere with the journal’s established policies. Any feedback or criticism related to the use of AI should be constructive and aligned with the journal’s official guidelines.
  
  Permitted Areas of Use
  Conceptual Diagrams and Explanatory Visuals
  Generative AI may be employed to depict theoretical ideas, conceptual frameworks, or processes visually. Any visuals created in this manner must faithfully represent the author’s own understanding and explanations.
  
  Data Visualization
  Authors are welcome to utilize AI tools to enhance the visual presentation of their research data. These tools can be particularly helpful for improving the clarity and design of graphs, charts, and tables.
  
  Illustrations and Representative Visuals
  AI-generated visuals may be used to create illustrative or symbolic representations that clarify and simplify complex ideas. Such visuals should support reader comprehension and must not distort or misrepresent the concepts being explained.
  
  Restricted or Prohibited Areas of AI Use
  Content Creation
  The use of AI to generate substantial sections of a scholarly manuscript—such as the abstract, introduction, literature review, or discussion—is deemed inappropriate. AI-generated content should be treated solely as preliminary drafts or suggestions and must be thoroughly reviewed, revised, and refined by the author(s) to ensure academic rigor and originality.
  
  Generation and Interpretation of Research Results
  AI tools must not be employed to produce, report, or interpret research findings. The full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and validity of the data analysis and its interpretation lies exclusively with the author(s).
  
  Reference Generation and Citation
  The use of AI tools to generate fabricated, unverifiable, or non-existent references is strictly prohibited. All cited sources must be verifiable, accurately referenced, and approved by the author(s), in accordance with scholarly standards.
  
  Academic Writing and Argumentation
  The development of the article’s central arguments, theoretical contributions, and principal theses is the sole responsibility of the author(s). AI may serve only as a supplementary aid in the writing process and must not replace the author’s critical reasoning or original scholarly contribution.
  
  Procedures in Case of Policy Violation
  Failure to disclose the use of AI tools or using them in violation of the stated guidelines may result in the rejection of the manuscript during the review process. If a policy violation is identified after publication, corrective actions may include the retraction of the article or the issuance of a formal correction. Repeated or serious breaches of this policy may lead to the rejection of future submissions by the author(s) to the journal.