Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

  • The Acta Biologica Turcica is published electronically 4 times a year.
  • Accepts English and Turkish language manuscripts concerning all kinds of biological processes including biochemistry and biosynthesis, physiology and metabolism, molecular genetics, molecular biology, environmental biology, microbiology, neurobiology, genomics, proteomics, molecular farming, biotechnology/genetic transformation, nanobiotechnology, bioinformatics and systems biology, cell and developmental biology, stem cell biology, and reproductive biology.
  • The contribution is open to researchers of all nationalities.
  • Letters to the editor reflect the opinions of other researchers on articles published in the journal.
  • The editor may invite survey reviews concerning recent developments in particular areas of interest.


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Editorial and Peer Review Process

Acta Biologica Turcica is a peer reviewed scientific journal with a rigorous editorial screening and assessment process made up of several stages.

The journal considers original research articles from all disciplines within the journal’s scope in the biological sciences. The editors make decisions on submissions based on scientific rigor, regardless of novelty.

All authors, editors, and reviewers are expected to reply to journal queries in a timely manner, and to comply with the Journal’ Code of Conduct for Editorial Board Members and Standards for Professional Conduct. Any concerns about the content of correspondence or reviews should be raised to the attention of journal staff via emailing to editor in chief.

 Checking the status of your manuscript

The corresponding author can check the status of a submitted manuscript at anytime in our submission system. Understanding manuscript statuses can be follow by explanations sign in different colors. The journal staff and in-house editorial team perform an initial quality check to identify potential issues.

 Editorial Review

After completing internal checks, each new submission is assigned to an Academic Editor with relevant expertise. The editor reviews the manuscript against our publication criteria and determines whether reviews from additional experts are needed to evaluate the manuscript. The handling Academic Editor is usually a member of the Acta Biologica Turcica Editorial Board, but occasionally a Guest Editor is invited to serve instead.

 Peer Review

During the submission process you’ll be asked to indicate any specific editors or reviewers who should not review your manuscript. We will respect your request so long as it does not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of the submission.

The handling editor selects reviewers based on expertise, publication history, and past reviews, and invites them to provide feedback on the manuscript. After agreeing to review, external peer reviewers typically have one month to submit their review. The journal office will follow up with late reviewers and keep you informed if there are any delays.


Editorial Decisions

The handling Academic Editor or Editor in Chief makes the final decision on each manuscript. The time to render a first decision averages about two months, but times vary depending on how long it takes for the editor to receive and assess reviews.

The editor considers reviewer feedback and their own evaluation of the manuscript in order to reach a decision. The following decision types are available:

- Reject

- Major revision

- Minor revision

- Accept

Decisions are communicated to the corresponding author in a formal letter, along with reviewer feedback and any other requirements from the journal office.


If the editor feels that your manuscript has the potential to be published, but requires changes, you’ll be invited to revise it. You’ll have typically one months to resubmit the revised manuscript for both a major or a minor revision.

The revised manuscript is re-assigned to the original Academic Editor. The editor may make a new decision based on their own assessment of the revised manuscript and your response to reviewers, or request additional input from external peer reviewers.

 Accepted Manuscripts

Acta Biologica Turcica uses two levels of accept decision. When the handling editor is satisfied with the scientific aspects of the manuscript they’ll issue an editorial accept decision. This is a provisional acceptance, pending final checks for formatting and technical requirements. Once the final requirements are fulfilled, the journal office will send a formal accept decision, and your manuscript will move on to production.


Authors may submit a formal appeal for rejected submissions. Appeal requests must be made in writing to plosone@plos.org with the word “appeal” in the subject line. Authors must provide detailed reasons for the appeal and point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or Academic Editor's comments.

Decisions on appeals are final without exception. Priority is given to new submissions, so the appeal process may take longer than the original submission process. 


If you have questions at any stage in the process, please email to editör in chief or adacemic editör of your field of study.


Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.


Journal License

Acta Biologica Turcica is the copyright holders of published articles in Acta Biologica Turcica. Acta Biologica Turcica will license the articles under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Authors are permitted to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website), as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).


Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Acta Biologica Turcica is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles. The editorial board of Acta Biologica Turcica is responsible for preventing publication malpractices. Unethical behavior is unacceptable and plagiarism is not tolerated in any form. Authors, reviewers, and editors are to be fully committed to good publication practice and take charge of fulfilling the following responsibilities.

 Publication and authorship

- All submitted manuscripts are subject to double-blind peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript. The factors that consider in review are relevance, significance, originality, readability and language.

- Authors can suggest five potential reviewers - experts in the subject matter of the article - but the editorial board of Acta Biologica Turcica can accept or reject suggested referees.

- The accepted articles may subject to further editing by journal editorial staff before they appear in print.

- The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection based on reviewers comments or editorial board decision. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a manuscript, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted. Rejected manuscripts will not be considered for further reviewing process.

- Acta Biologica Turcica is committed to complete reviewing process, if there is no response from any requested potential reviews. The editorial board can assign the manuscript to section editor to make final decision or reject the manuscript.

- Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate.

- No research can be included in more than one publication.


Authors' responsibilities

- Authors should certify that their manuscripts are their original work and not previously been published elsewhere and not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.

- If the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that should be appropriately cited or quoted.

- Authors are obliged to provide accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.

- Authors must provide corrections of mistakes.

- All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.

- Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.

- Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.

- Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior are unacceptable.

- Authors must notify the journal editor of any errors or inaccuracy in their published work, when they discover in their published paper.

- When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

- Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access as well.

- Acknowledgment of the work of others must be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.


 Reviewers' responsibilities

- Reviewers should keep all information regarding manuscript confidential and treat them as privileged information.

- Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.

- Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

- Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

- Reviewers should also call to the Editor-in-Chief or Managing editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

- Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

 Editors' responsibilities

- Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept a submitted manuscript.
- Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.

- Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
- Editors should have a clear picture of a research's funding sources.

- Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.

- Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.

- Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.

- Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.

- Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.

- Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.

- Editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.


Research Ethics

Research Ethics is aimed at all readers and authors interested in ethical issues in the conduct of research, the regulation of research, the procedures and process of ethical review as well as broader ethical issues related to research such as scientific integrity and the end uses of research. 

Research Ethics

It is good practice for journals to adopt publication policies to ensure that ethical and responsible research is published, and that all necessary consents and approvals have been obtained from authors to publish their work. These publication policies might include the items presented in the sections below.

Human rights, privacy, and confidentiality

For manuscripts reporting medical studies involving human participants, it is suggested that journals require authors to provide a statement identifying the ethics committee that approved the study, and that the study conforms to recognized standards, for example:

These standards encourage authors to conduct studies in a way that ensures adequate steps have been taken to minimize harm to participants, to avoid coercion or exploitation, to protect confidentiality, and to minimize the risk of physical and psychological harm.


Across the scholarly disciplines there are variations in practice around privacy and confidentiality, relative to the risks of participation and the reasonable expectations of participants.


In the biomedical sciences, editors should consider only publishing information and images from individual participants where the authors have obtained the individual's free prior informed consent. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidance says:

"Non-essential identifying details should be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity."

The best policy is for journals to require that authors confirm whether explicit written consent to publish has been received from any people described (for example, in case reports), shown in still or moving images, or whose voices are recorded. In the case of technical images (for example, radiographs or micrographs), editors should also ensure that all information that could identify the subject has been removed from the image. For voices or images of any human subject, permission according to applicable national laws must be sought from research participants before recording. In many jurisdictions it is a requirement that formal copyright clearance is obtained to publish any video or audio recordings. When publishing genetic sequences or family genograms editors may need consent from more than just the index case. The CARE guidelines are useful for editors who publish case reports.

In the social sciences and humanities, there are numerous ethical guidelines for researchers working with human participants. Social science and humanities researchers regularly work with audio and video materials gathered in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. They also use materials derived from broadcast sources, as in some political science or cultural studies work, where copyright must be addressed but where consent issues do not arise. However, wherever appropriate, social scientists are also responsible for protecting the confidentiality of human participants, and obtaining informed consent from all participants by openly communicating any and all information that is likely to influence their willingness to participate (for example, sponsorship, purpose and anticipated outcomes, and possible consequences that publication of the research may have for participants). International Society of Ethnobiology.

For social research data the Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and the Commonwealth suggests in its "Ethical Guidelines for Good Research Practice" that it is not always possible or necessary to gain written consent to publish, particularly when researchers are working with people with limited literacy or in cultures where formal bureaucratic procedures are problematic. However, it remains prudent for journals to ask authors to provide evidence that they have obtained informed consent. 

Exceptional cases might arise where gaining an individual's free prior informed consent is not possible but where publishing an individual's information or image can be demonstrated to have a genuine public health interest or to serve an important public need. In cases like this, before taking any action editors should seek and follow counsel from the journal owner, the publisher, and/or legal professionals.

Animals in research

Research involving animals should be conducted with the same rigor as research in humans. Journals can encourage authors to implement the 3Rs principles:

"The 3Rs are a widely accepted ethical framework for conducting scientific experiments using animals humanely: Replacement - use of non-animal methods; Reduction - methods which reduce the number of animals used; Refinement - methods which improve animal welfare."

The International Council for Laboratory Animal Science has published ethical guidelines for editors and reviewers.

Journals should encourage authors to adhere to animal research reporting standards, for example, the ARRIVE reporting guidelines, which describe the details journals should require from authors regarding:

- Study design and statistical analysis.

- Experimental procedures.

- Experimental animals.

- Housing and husbandry.

Journals should ask authors to confirm that ethical and legal approval was obtained prior to the start of the study, and state the name of the body giving the approval. Authors should also state whether experiments were performed in accordance with relevant institutional and national guidelines and regulations.

The authors should conform to Directive 2010/63/EU

Editors may ask authors to describe in their articles how discomfort, distress, and pain were avoided and minimized, and to confirm that animals did not suffer unnecessarily at any stage of an experiment.

Editors may request that reviewers comment on the standard of experimental reporting, experimental design, or any other aspects of the study reported that may cause concern. If concerns are raised or clarifications are needed, they may need to request evidence of ethical research approval or question authors.


Journals should ask authors to inform them at the time of manuscript submission if their study has potential for both benevolent and malevolent application. This is often referred to as "dual use research."

Journals should ask these authors to conform to the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) guidelines for Dual Use Life Sciences Research. The June 2007 NSABB report presents a useful description and discussion of "dual use research of concern."