Editorial Policies

Version 1.0

Publisher: Özgür Başal Sağlık Hizmetleri, Danışmanlık ve Yayıncılık Limited Şirketi
https://journal.sporthopedia.org
editor@sporthopedia.org

This document sets out the editorial policies of the Journal of Sporthopedia ("the Journal"), an international, open-access, peer-reviewed publication in sports orthopaedics, musculoskeletal medicine, and surgical education, published by Özgür Başal Sağlık Hizmetleri, Danışmanlık ve Yayıncılık Limited Şirketi ("the Publisher"). It is intended for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, institutional partners, and indexing/evaluation bodies (including but not limited to DOAJ, Crossref, and Scopus).

These policies apply alongside, and are subordinate in specificity but not in authority to, the Journal's Guide for Authors. Where a conflict arises between the two documents, this Editorial Policies statement governs. This document is publicly accessible on the Journal website and is referenced from every relevant point in the submission and review workflow.

The purpose of this statement is threefold: first, to provide authors, reviewers, and readers with a transparent account of how editorial decisions are made and how ethical concerns are handled; second, to provide indexing and accreditation bodies with the documentation necessary to evaluate the Journal against international best-practice criteria; and third, to provide the Journal's own editorial team with a consistent internal reference for handling routine and exceptional cases.

1. Introduction and Governing Standards

1.1 Scope of application

These policies apply to all content types published by the Journal, including original research articles, systematic and scoping reviews, case reports, technical notes, editorials, letters to the editor, and study protocols. Certain provisions (e.g., clinical trial registration, human/animal ethics) apply only to the content types for which they are relevant, as indicated in each section.

1.2 Definitions

• "Editorial Office" refers to the operational staff responsible for day-to-day manuscript handling, correspondence, and administrative support of the editorial process.
• "Editor-in-Chief" refers to the individual with final editorial authority over the Journal's content and policies.
• "Handling Editor" refers to the editor (which may be the Editor-in-Chief, an Associate Editor, or a Guest Editor) assigned primary responsibility for a specific manuscript.
• "Corresponding Author" refers to the author designated as the primary point of contact for editorial correspondence and post-publication queries.

Governing standards. The Journal endorses and applies the recommendations of the following bodies in the conduct, review, editing, and publication of scholarly work:

• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) — Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) — Core Practices and guideline flowcharts
• EQUATOR Network — reporting guidelines for health research (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE, ARRIVE, STARD, TRIPOD, and related extensions)
• Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) — Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
• World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) — policy statements on editorial independence and professionalism

Where these bodies issue updated guidance, the Journal will update its practices and, where material, this document, within a reasonable transition period.

2. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of scientific merit, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance to the Journal's aims and scope, independent of commercial considerations, advertiser interests, sponsor relationships, or the personal, institutional, or national affiliations of the authors.

The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over editorial content and the timing of publication. The Publisher does not interfere in editorial decisions on individual manuscripts. This separation of editorial and business functions is a foundational commitment of the Journal and is consistent with WAME and DOAJ expectations for editorial independence.

2.1 Recusal and conflicted submissions

Members of the editorial team who are also authors on a submission are recused from all editorial and review decisions concerning that submission; such manuscripts are handled by an independent guest editor or an unaffiliated member of the editorial board, and the recusal is documented internally. This applies equally to submissions from the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, and members of the Editorial Board, regardless of seniority.

2.2 Separation from business functions

The Journal maintains a clear separation between editorial and business/marketing functions. No individual with a commercial or advertising role in the Journal has authority over editorial decisions, and no financial relationship between the Publisher and any author, institution, or sponsor may influence the outcome of peer review.

2.3 Governance structure

The Journal is governed by an Editor-in-Chief supported by an Editorial Board comprising subject-matter experts in sports orthopaedics, musculoskeletal medicine, biostatistics, and related fields. The Editorial Board reviews journal policy periodically and advises on strategic and ethical matters, but does not have authority to override the Editor-in-Chief's decision on an individual manuscript.

3. Authorship and Contributorship

The Journal applies the ICMJE authorship criteria. To qualify as an author, an individual must meet all four of the following conditions:

• Substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data;
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
• Final approval of the version to be published;
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring questions relating to accuracy or integrity are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet all four criteria (e.g., general supervision, technical support, funding acquisition alone, provision of standard care, or data collection without analytical input) should be listed in the Acknowledgements section, with their written permission, rather than as authors.

3.1 CRediT taxonomy

All original research submissions must include a Contributor Role Statement using the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) framework, specifying each author's role(s): Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project Administration, and Funding Acquisition. This statement is published alongside the article.

3.2 Corresponding author responsibilities

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors have approved the final submitted version, that the author list and order are agreed by all authors prior to submission, and for serving as the primary point of contact throughout peer review, production, and after publication, including responding to reader queries and correction/retraction correspondence.

3.3 Ghost, guest, and gift authorship

Ghost authorship (omission of an individual who meets authorship criteria, often a medical writer or industry-affiliated contributor) and guest/gift authorship (inclusion of an individual who does not meet authorship criteria, often for seniority or reputational reasons) are both considered violations of publication ethics and are treated under the Journal's research misconduct process.

3.4 Changes to authorship

Any request to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be approved in writing by all listed authors, including any author being removed or added, and must be accompanied by a justification acceptable to the Editor-in-Chief. Requests for authorship changes after acceptance or publication are subject to heightened scrutiny and may require a published correction.

3.5 Disputes

Authorship disputes are, in the first instance, the responsibility of the authors and their institution(s) to resolve. The Journal may pause the editorial process pending resolution and, in cases of suspected ghost or guest authorship, may investigate in accordance with COPE guidance.

4. Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest exists when an author, reviewer, or editor has a financial, personal, professional, or institutional relationship that could be perceived to influence, or actually influences, their judgment regarding a manuscript. Disclosure, not the mere existence of a relationship, is the operative standard: having a conflict does not automatically disqualify participation, but failure to disclose it is a serious ethical breach.

4.1 Author disclosure

All authors must disclose, at submission, all financial relationships (consulting fees, honoraria, equity, patents, industry funding, speaker bureau membership) and non-financial relationships (personal, institutional, ideological) that could be perceived as influencing the submitted work, covering at minimum the 36 months preceding submission. Disclosures are published with the article regardless of whether a conflict is judged material by the authors themselves.

4.2 Reviewer disclosure

Reviewers must decline to review, or must disclose to the handling editor, any relationship with the authors, their institution, or the study's funder that could compromise objectivity, including recent collaboration (co-authorship within the past 3 years), personal relationships, direct competition, or having served as the author's mentor or trainee.

4.3 Editor disclosure

Editors must recuse themselves from handling any manuscript in which they have a personal, financial, or professional conflict, including manuscripts authored or co-authored by themselves, close collaborators, or current/recent trainees, in line with Section 2.1 (Recusal).

4.4 Institutional and funding-related conflicts

Where a study is funded by a commercial entity with a direct interest in the outcome (e.g., a device or implant manufacturer), authors must describe the funder's role, if any, in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and the decision to submit for publication. Studies in which the funder had control over these elements without independent academic oversight will be flagged during editorial screening for closer scrutiny.

5. Peer Review Policy

The Journal operates a double-blind peer review process: author identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are concealed from authors, unless a reviewer elects to sign their review. Double-blind review is used because it is the model most familiar to the Journal's target author and reviewer community in orthopaedic sports medicine, and it reduces the risk of bias based on author reputation, institution, or geography.

5.1 Process

• Initial editorial screening for scope, originality, and minimum quality (typically within 2 weeks).
• Assignment to a minimum of two independent, subject-matter reviewers; a third reviewer or statistical reviewer may be invited where methodologically warranted.
• Reviewers evaluate scientific validity, originality, clarity, and adherence to relevant reporting guidelines, and provide a recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject) with supporting comments.
• The handling editor synthesizes reviewer input and prior editorial judgment into a decision letter; in cases of substantial reviewer disagreement, an additional reviewer or editorial board discussion is used to reach a decision.
• Authors are given a defined window (typically 4 weeks, extendable on request) to revise and respond point-by-point to reviewer comments.
• Revised manuscripts are typically returned to the original reviewers where feasible, to assess whether concerns have been adequately addressed.

5.2 Reviewer selection and eligibility

Reviewers are selected on the basis of relevant subject-matter expertise, publication record, and absence of conflict of interest with the authors. The Journal maintains a reviewer database and welcomes reviewer self-nomination via the Journal website. Early-career researchers may be invited to co-review alongside a senior reviewer as part of a structured reviewer mentoring approach, at the discretion of the handling editor.

5.3 Reviewer conduct

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, evidence-based, and timely evaluations; to maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and review process; to disclose conflicts of interest; and to alert the editor to any suspected ethical concerns, including plagiarism, data fabrication, or undisclosed conflicts.

Reviewers and editors must not use AI tools or third-party services to process or evaluate submitted manuscripts, in order to protect author confidentiality and prevent unauthorized data exposure. Reviewers must not use information or ideas obtained through the review process for personal or competitive advantage prior to publication.

5.4 Editor types and responsibilities

The Editor-in-Chief holds overall responsibility for the Journal's editorial content and policy. Associate Editors handle manuscripts within their specific subspecialty and report to the Editor-in-Chief. Guest Editors may be appointed for special issues or to handle conflicted submissions, and operate under the same standards of independence and confidentiality as standing editors.

5.5 Reviewer recognition

With the reviewer's consent, the Journal may acknowledge reviewer contributions (e.g., via Publons/Web of Science Reviewer Recognition or an annual published reviewer list), without disclosing which manuscripts were reviewed by whom.

6. Appeals

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a formal, written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 4 weeks of the decision, providing a point-by-point rebuttal of the specific scientific or procedural grounds for disagreement.

Appeals based solely on disagreement with reviewer opinion, without new evidence or identification of a procedural or factual error, are unlikely to succeed. The Journal distinguishes between appeals raising substantive scientific disagreement (e.g., a reviewer misunderstood the statistical method) and those expressing dissatisfaction with the outcome without new argument; only the former typically warrants re-review.

6.1 Appeal process

Appeals are evaluated by an editor not involved in the original decision wherever feasible, and may involve consultation with an additional independent reviewer or a statistical reviewer where the disagreement is methodological. The Editor-in-Chief renders a final decision on the appeal, typically within 4 weeks of receipt, and communicates the reasoning to the authors in writing. The outcome of an appeal is final within the Journal's internal process; authors retain the right to submit the work elsewhere following a final rejection.

7. Complaints

Complaints regarding editorial conduct, peer review quality, publication ethics, or any other aspect of the Journal's operation may be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office (editor@sporthopedia.org). This is distinct from an appeal of a scientific editorial decision (see Section 6) and instead concerns process, conduct, or ethics.

Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and investigated in accordance with COPE guidance, involving individuals not implicated in the complaint wherever possible. Complainants are informed of the outcome and, where appropriate, of any corrective action taken. Where a complaint cannot be resolved internally to the satisfaction of the complainant, it may be escalated to COPE for guidance, subject to the Journal's membership/affiliate status at the time.

Anonymous complaints will be considered on their merits but may be more difficult to investigate thoroughly; complainants are encouraged, though not required, to identify themselves to facilitate follow-up.

8. Human and Animal Research Ethics

8.1 Human studies

All research involving human participants must have been conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as amended). Manuscripts must state the approving Institutional Review Board / Ethics Committee, the approval reference number, and confirm that informed consent was obtained from participants (or their legal guardians), including explicit consent for the use of identifiable images or case details.

Studies involving retrospective review of routinely collected clinical data must document either ethics committee approval or a formal waiver, consistent with local regulatory requirements. Where national or institutional regulations do not require formal ethics approval for a given study type, authors must state this explicitly and cite the relevant regulation or institutional policy.

Authors should report sex and gender in accordance with the SAGER (Sex and Gender Equity in Research) guidelines, specifying how these variables were assessed and whether findings are generalizable across sex/gender groups. This is particularly relevant in sports orthopaedics, where injury patterns, biomechanics, and outcomes may differ meaningfully by sex.

8.2 Animal studies

Preclinical animal studies must comply with relevant institutional, national, and international guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals, and must be reported in accordance with the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. Approval by an appropriate institutional animal care and use committee (or equivalent) must be stated, including the approval reference number, along with a statement confirming adherence to the 3Rs principle (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) where applicable.

8.3 Case reports and identifiable information

Case reports and any figures containing identifiable patient information (including radiographs with visible identifiers, or clinical photographs) require documented, signed patient consent for publication, which must be available to the Editorial Office upon request, though not submitted with the manuscript itself for privacy reasons.

9. Clinical Trial Registration

The Journal requires prospective registration of all clinical trials in a publicly accessible trial registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, or a WHO ICTRP primary registry) prior to enrollment of the first participant, consistent with ICMJE policy.

The trial registration number must be provided at submission and stated in the manuscript abstract. Manuscripts reporting retrospectively registered trials may be rejected without external review, unless the authors provide a documented and compelling justification accepted by the Editor-in-Chief (e.g., registries unavailable at the time of a legacy multi-year study).

For systematic reviews and meta-analyses, prospective registration of the review protocol (PROSPERO or Open Science Framework) is strongly encouraged, and the registration identifier should be cited in the manuscript. Any material deviation between the registered protocol and the final published methodology must be disclosed and justified in the manuscript.

9.1 Trial results reporting

Authors are expected to report all pre-specified primary and secondary outcomes, regardless of whether results were statistically significant or favorable, consistent with the Journal's commitment to reducing outcome reporting bias in the surgical and sports medicine literature.

10. Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to, fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, image manipulation, duplicate or redundant publication, undisclosed conflicts of interest, ghost or guest authorship, and other serious deviations from accepted research practice, whether occurring at the design, conduct, analysis, or reporting stage of a study.

Allegations of research misconduct, whether identified by editors, reviewers, readers, or third parties (including post-publication), are investigated in accordance with COPE flowcharts and Core Practices. Investigation may include requesting raw data, contacting the authors' institution(s), and, where appropriate, referral to institutional or national research integrity bodies.

10.1 Investigation process

Upon receipt of a credible allegation, the Editor-in-Chief will: (1) acknowledge receipt and, where necessary, place the manuscript or published article on hold pending investigation; (2) request a response from the corresponding author; (3) consult with the Editorial Board or an independent expert as needed; and (4) reach a determination, applying the standard of a reasonable balance of evidence rather than a criminal standard of proof.

10.2 Outcomes

Outcomes of a substantiated misconduct finding may include rejection, correction, retraction, formal notification to the authors' institution(s) and funders, and, in serious or repeated cases, a bar on future submissions to the Journal. The Journal will act proportionately, distinguishing honest error from deliberate misconduct wherever the evidence allows.

11. Publication Ethics

The Journal is committed to upholding the integrity of the scholarly record and applies the following specific standards, in addition to the general research misconduct policy in Section 10. These standards apply equally at submission, during peer review, and after publication.

11.1 Plagiarism

All submissions are screened using Crossref Similarity Check (powered by iThenticate) upon activation of Journal Crossref membership. A similarity index below 20% (excluding references and standard methodological language) is generally expected; higher scores trigger editorial review of the specific matched content, since raw percentage alone is not determinative of plagiarism. Self-plagiarism (reuse of an author's own previously published text without citation or disclosure) is treated under the same standard.

11.2 Duplicate and redundant publication

Simultaneous submission of the same or substantially overlapping manuscript to more than one journal, or publication of data/findings that substantially duplicate a prior publication without appropriate cross-referencing and justification, is prohibited and grounds for rejection or post-publication retraction. Secondary publication (e.g., translation into another language) is permitted only with prior notification to the Editor-in-Chief, clear cross-referencing, and compliance with ICMJE secondary publication criteria.

11.3 Salami slicing

Authors must not fragment a single coherent study into multiple manuscripts submitted separately in order to increase publication count, where the scientific content would be more appropriately and completely reported as a single article. Authors must disclose any related or overlapping manuscripts derived from the same cohort, dataset, or registry at the time of submission, including manuscripts under review or in preparation elsewhere.

11.4 Image integrity

Image adjustments (brightness, contrast, color) must not obscure, eliminate, move, add, or otherwise misrepresent any feature of the original data. Composite figures must clearly delineate boundaries between panels drawn from different sources or experiments, and this delineation must be stated in the figure legend. Original, unprocessed image files must be retained by authors for a minimum of 10 years and provided to the Editorial Office upon request.

11.5 Paper mills and citation manipulation

The Journal actively screens for indicators associated with paper mill activity (templated or formulaic language, implausible authorship patterns, fabricated affiliations, or datasets inconsistent with claimed methodology) and reserves the right to request additional verification, raw data, or institutional confirmation. Coercive citation (requesting citations to the Journal or specific individuals without scientific justification), citation stacking, and excessive self-citation intended to manipulate bibliometric indicators are prohibited and are monitored as part of routine editorial and peer review.

11.6 Handling of ethical concerns raised during review

Where a reviewer or editor identifies a potential ethical concern during peer review (e.g., suspected data fabrication, undisclosed conflict of interest, or plagiarism), the manuscript is placed on hold and the concern is escalated to the Editor-in-Chief for investigation prior to any further editorial action, following the applicable COPE flowchart.

12. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

This section governs the use of generative AI and large language model (LLM) tools by authors, reviewers, and editors in connection with the Journal, and reflects current guidance from ICMJE, COPE, and major biomedical publishers as of the date of this document.

12.1 Authorship

AI tools cannot be credited as authors. Authorship requires the capacity to take responsibility and be accountable for the work, including the ability to respond to post-publication queries and to consent to publication, which AI tools cannot assume under any circumstance.

12.2 Author use and disclosure

Authors may use AI tools to assist with language editing, literature searching, or exploratory data analysis, provided such use is fully disclosed (tool name, version where known, and purpose) in the Methods section (for analytical use) or Acknowledgements (for writing/language assistance). AI tools must not be used to generate, fabricate, or alter original scientific data, results, or images purporting to represent study findings.

12.3 Verification and author responsibility

Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy and integrity of all AI-assisted content, including verification of every citation against its original source. Submissions found to contain fabricated or hallucinated references will be rejected and may be treated as a research integrity matter under Section 10.

12.4 Reviewer and editor use

Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscript content to AI tools, cloud-based writing assistants, or other third-party services, as doing so may breach author confidentiality and constitute unauthorized data disclosure. This restriction applies regardless of whether the AI tool's terms of service claim not to retain uploaded content.

12.5 AI in images and figures

AI-generated or AI-altered images are not permitted for original research data (e.g., radiographs, histology, clinical photographs) unless the AI-based method is itself the subject of the study, in which case full methodological disclosure — including model name, version, training data provenance where known, and validation approach — is required.

12.6 Policy review

Given the pace of change in AI capability and publisher guidance, this section will be reviewed at minimum every six months and updated as needed, with material changes communicated to the editorial board and reflected in the Journal's Guide for Authors.

13. Preprints

The Journal permits and encourages the posting of preprints on recognized platforms (e.g., bioRxiv, medRxiv, Research Square, OSF Preprints) prior to or concurrent with submission. Posting a preprint does not constitute prior publication and does not affect a manuscript's eligibility for peer review at the Journal.

Authors must disclose the preprint's DOI or URL at the time of submission and are responsible for updating the preprint record with a link to the Journal's final published version upon acceptance. The Journal recommends, but does not require, that authors note any substantive differences between the preprint and the final peer-reviewed version.

14. Corrections

Where an honest error is identified after publication that does not undermine the overall scientific conclusions of the article (e.g., a typographical error, an incorrect affiliation, a minor data transcription error, an incomplete conflict of interest statement), the Journal will publish a formal Correction (Erratum/Corrigendum) linked bidirectionally to the original article.

Corrections are initiated by the authors, editors, or readers, and are approved by the Editor-in-Chief. The original article is not removed; the Correction is published as a separate, citable item that clearly states what was changed and why, and both versions remain permanently accessible.

15. Retractions and Expressions of Concern

The Journal follows COPE Retraction Guidelines. An article may be retracted where there is clear evidence of unreliable findings due to major error or misconduct (fabrication, falsification, data manipulation), redundant publication, plagiarism, unethical research, or a substantial part of the work having been copied without attribution or permission, or where the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification.

A retraction notice is published, permanently linked to the original article (which remains accessible, clearly marked as retracted), stating the reason for retraction, who initiated it, and the date of the decision. Retraction is distinct from removal: the Journal does not remove articles from the public record except in extremely rare circumstances (e.g., legal requirement, serious health risk if the content remains available).

An Expression of Concern may be published where credible ethical or integrity concerns have been raised but an investigation is inconclusive, ongoing, or the evidence is not yet definitive, to alert readers pending resolution. An Expression of Concern is subsequently updated with either a retraction or a statement confirming no further action is warranted, once the investigation concludes.

16. Post-Publication Discussion

Readers may submit a Letter to the Editor commenting on a published article, raising scientific concerns, alternative interpretations, or requesting clarification. Letters are subject to editorial screening and, where appropriate, brief peer review.

The original authors are invited to submit a response, which is published alongside the Letter, typically within the same or next available issue. Substantive post-publication concerns regarding data integrity or methodology, as opposed to differences of scientific interpretation, may additionally trigger the Research Misconduct process (Section 10) rather than being handled solely through the Letters mechanism.

17. Data Sharing and Open Science

The Journal supports open and reproducible science in accordance with FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), consistent with the broader movement in biomedical publishing toward greater research transparency.

• A Data Availability Statement is mandatory for all original research articles, specifying whether and how underlying data can be accessed.
• Authors are encouraged, where ethically and legally permissible, to deposit datasets in a recognized public repository (e.g., Zenodo, OSF, Dryad, or an institutional repository) with a citable DOI.
• Authors are encouraged to deposit analysis code in a public repository (e.g., GitHub, archived via Zenodo) with a citable DOI.
• Study protocols should be shared via PROSPERO, OSF, or a clinical trial registry, consistent with Sections 8–9.

Where data cannot be shared (e.g., due to patient privacy, third-party data use agreements, or institutional restriction), the Data Availability Statement must explain the specific restriction rather than simply stating data are unavailable, and should indicate the conditions under which access might be granted (e.g., reasonable request to the corresponding author, subject to institutional data-sharing agreement).

17.1 Reproducibility

The Journal encourages, but does not currently mandate, submission of analysis code and statistical scripts as supplementary material for original research articles, to facilitate independent verification of reported results.

18. Copyright

Authors retain copyright in their published work. Upon acceptance, authors grant the Journal a non-exclusive license to publish, distribute, and archive the article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) described in Section 19. No transfer of copyright ownership to the Journal or Publisher is required.

Authors are responsible for obtaining and providing evidence of permission for any third-party copyrighted material (e.g., figures, tables, or substantial text excerpts reproduced from other publications) included in a submission, and for ensuring that any patient images or identifiable data are used with documented informed consent as described in Section 8.

19. Licensing and Open Access

All articles are published immediately upon acceptance under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are appropriately credited. There is no embargo period; full text is available on publication.

The Journal currently charges no Article Processing Charge (APC). This policy will be clearly communicated to authors at submission and reviewed periodically by the Editorial Board and Publisher; any future change to the APC policy will be announced with reasonable advance notice and will not apply retroactively to manuscripts already under review at the time of the change.

The Journal does not charge submission fees, and there are no fees for peer review. Should any fee structure be introduced in the future, it will be published transparently on the Journal website, consistent with DOAJ Principles of Transparency.

20. Archiving

The Journal is committed to the long-term preservation of the scholarly record, recognizing that this is a core expectation for indexing in DOAJ and Scopus and a foundational trust requirement for authors and readers of an open-access journal.

The Journal intends to participate in a recognized digital preservation service (e.g., CLOCKSS, LOCKSS, or the PKP Preservation Network) to ensure continued access to published content in the event the Journal ceases publication or experiences a technical failure. Until formal enrollment is complete, the Journal maintains redundant institutional and cloud-based backups of all published content and associated metadata, refreshed on a regular schedule.

All published articles are assigned a persistent digital object identifier (DOI) upon Crossref membership activation, ensuring stable citability independent of any future change to the Journal's website infrastructure.

21. Advertising Policy

The Journal does not currently carry advertising. Should advertising be introduced in the future, it will be clearly distinguished from editorial content, will not influence editorial decisions in any way, and will not be targeted based on the content of specific articles a reader is viewing.

Advertisers will have no access to, or influence over, editorial decision-making, and no advertisement will be permitted for products or services inconsistent with the Journal's scientific and ethical standards (e.g., unproven therapies, direct-to-consumer promotion of prescription-only interventions, or products contrary to the interests of patient safety). Any future advertising policy will be published in full on the Journal website prior to implementation.

22. Contact and Governance

This document is maintained by the Editorial Office and approved by the Editor-in-Chief. It will be reviewed at least annually, or upon material changes in applicable COPE, ICMJE, or DOAJ guidance, whichever is sooner.

22.1 Contact details

• Editorial Office: editor@sporthopedia.org
• Journal website: https://journal.sporthopedia.org
• Publisher: Özgür Başal Sağlık Hizmetleri, Danışmanlık ve Yayıncılık Limited Şirketi

22.2 Version history

• Version 1.0 — Initial publication of this Editorial Policies statement.

Appendix A: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Template

Authors, reviewers, and editors are asked to complete a disclosure covering the 36 months preceding the relevant activity (submission, review, or editorial decision). A suggested template is provided below; the Journal may adopt the ICMJE Disclosure Form as a standardized alternative once the Journal's manuscript system supports structured form uploads.

• Employment or affiliation (current and relevant past 36 months)
• Consulting fees or honoraria received from entities with an interest in the subject matter
• Grants or contracts related to the submitted work
• Patents planned, pending, or issued, relevant to the submitted work
• Stock or stock options in a company with an interest in the subject matter
• Payment for expert testimony related to the subject matter
• Membership on a data safety monitoring board, advisory board, or similar body
• Any other financial or non-financial relationship that could be perceived to influence the work

Where no conflicts exist, the statement "The author(s) declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this work" is used.

Appendix B: Data Availability Statement — Model Wording

Authors may adapt one of the following model statements, or provide a custom statement consistent with FAIR principles (Section 17).

• Full availability: "All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary materials."
• Repository deposit: "The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the [repository name] repository, [DOI/URL]."
• Restricted access: "The data that support the findings of this study are available from [institution/data controller] but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under [ethics approval / data use agreement] for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are, however, available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of [institution]."
• Not applicable: "Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study" (for narrative reviews, editorials, or similar content types).

Appendix C: Glossary of Terms

• ARRIVE — Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments, reporting guideline for preclinical animal studies.
• CARE — CAse REport guideline, reporting standard for clinical case reports.
• CONSORT — Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, reporting guideline for randomized controlled trials.
• COPE — Committee on Publication Ethics.
• CRediT — Contributor Roles Taxonomy, a standardized system for describing author contributions.
• DOAJ — Directory of Open Access Journals.
• FAIR — Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable; principles for data stewardship.
• ICMJE — International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
• PRISMA / PRISMA-ScR — Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (and its Scoping Review extension).
• PROSPERO — International prospective register of systematic reviews.
• SAGER — Sex and Gender Equity in Research guidelines.
• STARD — Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.
• STROBE — Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology.
• TRIPOD — Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis.
• WAME — World Association of Medical Editors.

Appendix D: Quick-Reference Summary — Retraction Decision Pathway

The following summarizes, in simplified form, the Journal's approach to a reported concern about a published article, adapted from COPE guidance (Section 15). This summary is illustrative; the applicable COPE flowchart governs in case of any discrepancy.

1. Concern received (from reader, author, editor, or third party) and logged by the Editorial Office.
2. Preliminary assessment by the Editor-in-Chief: credible and substantive, or not?
3. If credible: corresponding author(s) notified and given the opportunity to respond, typically within 4 weeks.
4. Where appropriate, an Expression of Concern is published pending resolution (Section 15).
5. Investigation, which may include institutional consultation, independent expert review, or data audit.
6. Determination by the Editor-in-Chief, informed by the Editorial Board where appropriate.
7. Outcome: no action, published Correction, published Retraction, or referral to the authors' institution.
8. All decisions and their rationale are documented and retained by the Editorial Office.

Appendix E: Frequently Asked Questions

Can I submit a manuscript that is already posted as a preprint?

Yes. See Section 13 (Preprints). Posting a preprint does not affect eligibility for peer review, provided the preprint DOI/URL is disclosed at submission.

Does the Journal charge any fees?

No. The Journal currently charges no Article Processing Charge (APC) and no submission fee. See Section 19 for details on how any future change would be communicated.

Who can I contact if I disagree with a reviewer's comments?

Authors may respond to reviewer comments during the standard revision process, or, following a final decision, may submit a formal appeal per Section 6. Disagreement with reviewer opinion alone, without new evidence, is unlikely to succeed on appeal.

What happens if I discover an error in my own published article?

Authors are strongly encouraged to proactively contact the Editorial Office as soon as an error is identified. Depending on severity, this will result in a Correction (Section 14) or, in serious cases, a Retraction (Section 15) initiated by the authors themselves — which is viewed favorably as responsible conduct, not penalized as misconduct.

Can I use ChatGPT or a similar AI tool to help write my manuscript?

Limited, disclosed use for language editing or literature searching is permitted; AI tools cannot be listed as authors, cannot generate original scientific data, and all AI-assisted content must be verified by the authors. See Section 12 for full requirements.

How long does peer review typically take?

Initial editorial screening: approximately 2 weeks. Full peer review: 6–8 weeks. See Section 5.1 for the complete process and Section 8 (Editorial Process Flow, Guide for Authors) for a visual overview.

What license will my article be published under?

CC BY 4.0. Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal a non-exclusive license to publish. See Sections 18–19.