Publication Policy

Open Access Policy

Andrology Bulletin is an open-access publication.

All content published in the Andrology Bulletin is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 International License, which permits third parties to use the content for non-commercial purposes provided they cite the original work. This license encourages the dissemination and use of research published in the journal by allowing the sharing and adaptation of the content for non-commercial purposes.

Content published prior to the December 2023 issue is licensed under traditional copyright law, but the archive is still freely accessible.

All published content is freely accessible online at https://www.androlojibulten.org/

Copyright Policy

A Copyright Agreement and Authorship Form must be submitted along with all articles submitted to the journal. By signing these forms, authors agree that the article accepted for publication by Andrology Bulletin will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits third parties to share and adapt the content for non-commercial purposes, provided they properly cite the original work.

The authors reserve the copyright to their works published in the Andrology Bulletin.

Own Archiving Policy

After publication, authors reserve the right to archive their work on their institutional or personal websites and in open access repositories. Authors are expected to properly cite the original publication and include its DOI number when sharing their articles. Authors are also required to provide a link from the uploaded version to the publisher's website URL. This requirement aims to preserve the integrity and authenticity of the scholarly record; the version published online on the publisher's website is explicitly identified as the definitive record version.

Advertising Policy

Andrology Bulletin accepts digital advertisements on its website. These advertisements must be approved by the journal's Editorial Board and management and clearly labeled as advertisements. Advertisers have no influence on publication decisions or advertising policies.

Those wishing to advertise in the magazine should contact the Editorial Board.

Peer Review Process

Articles submitted to the Andrology Bulletin are evaluated based on independent, unbiased, double-blind peer review reports. To be considered for evaluation, a signed "Copyright Transfer Form" confirming the consent of all authors must be attached to the submitted article. To ensure an impartial evaluation process, each article will be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who are experts in their respective fields.

For articles deemed suitable for the journal, the Editor will work with the Section Editors to assign appropriate reviewers. Once assigned, the Section Editors may decide to reject an article, continue the peer review process, or request revisions before further peer review.

Section editors will communicate their recommendations to the Editor based on reports submitted by reviewers. Revised articles will be re-evaluated by Section Editors, working with the original reviewers to formulate a new recommendation.
The editor is the final authority in the decision-making process for all submissions.

In case of delays, authors will be informed of the reason for the delay and given the opportunity to retract their manuscripts.
After the peer review process is complete, authors will receive anonymous peer review reports along with the editor's decision on their articles. These reports will not be publicly available in any medium. Submitted material is considered confidential and should not be used in any way until publication. If a reviewer is suspected of appropriating an author's ideas or data, the Editorial Board will address the matter in accordance with the relevant COPE guidelines.

Authors may suggest reviewers during the submission process. The managing editor is the sole authority to decide whether or not to invite suggested reviewers to evaluate the manuscript.

Reviewers are required to adhere to the principles of COPE's Code of Ethics for Reviewers, which provides a framework for reviewers to follow in order to ensure the integrity and fairness of the peer review process. The Editorial Board follows COPE's relevant flowchart to minimize peer review manipulation. If peer review manipulation is suspected after publication, the Editorial Board will follow COPE's appropriate flowchart.

Potential reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the Editor before accepting an invitation to review an article. Informing the Editor of potential conflicts of interest allows the potential reviewer to make an informed decision about whether or not to participate in the review process. This also helps ensure the integrity and transparency of the evaluation process.

Communication between editors and reviewers contains confidential information that should not be shared with third parties.

To ensure a fair peer-review process, the Andrology Bulletin will appoint external editors for articles submitted by the journal's editorial board members. External editors will be selected based on their academic qualifications and peer-review experience. The confidentiality of external editors and reviewers to maintain impartiality is important. Transparency and a reliable review process are encouraged by requesting that reviewers and external editors disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

Revisions

Authors of articles requiring “minor revisions” or “major revisions” will receive a decision letter from the Editor. The decision letter will include the recommendations of the reviewers and editors, and the deadline for submitting the revised and updated version of the article.

When submitting a revised version of the article, authors should include a detailed “Response to Reviewers” ​​outlining how each issue raised by the reviewers was addressed and where it was located (each reviewer’s comment, followed by the author’s response and the line numbers where the changes were made), along with an annotated copy of the original document.

Revised manuscripts must be submitted within the timeframe specified in the decision letter. If the revised version of the manuscript is not submitted within the allotted time, the revision option may be cancelled. If the submitting author(s) believe they need additional time, they must request an extension before the initial deadline.

Authorship

All individuals listed as authors must meet the authorship criteria recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following four criteria:

1. Significant contributions to the conceptualization or design of the study, or to the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data for the study.

2. Preparing a draft of the work or critically reviewing it for significant intellectual content.

3. Giving final approval to the version to be released.

4. To accept responsibility for all aspects of the study in order to ensure that any questions regarding the accuracy or integrity of any part of the study are properly investigated and resolved.

Authors should be responsible for sections of their work, as well as being able to identify which co-authors are responsible for other specific sections of the work to ensure that all authors' contributions are accurately and appropriately acknowledged. All authors are expected to agree on their individual contributions shared by the corresponding author. The authors' statement of contribution will be published with the final article and should accurately reflect their contributions to the work.

Individuals who do not meet all four authorship criteria should not be listed as authors in the article. However, to acknowledge their contributions and provide transparency regarding who is involved in the research, they may be appreciated for their contributions on the title page of the article.

If the editorial board suspects ghostwriting, honorary authorship, or gift authorship, the submission will be suspended, and the relevant COPE flowchart and COPE Authorship and Contribution Policy will be applied.

Author Change

Requests for author changes, such as the removal or addition of authors, or changes in the order of authors, must be submitted to the editorial board along with a letter stating the reasons for the change. The letter must be signed by all authors, including those whose names are being removed.

The journal's Editorial Board will handle authorship change requests consistently and transparently, following the relevant COPE flowchart guidelines. These procedures are implemented to protect the integrity of the research and the reputation of all relevant authors.

Declaration of Interest

Andrology Bulletin requires all contributing authors to complete and submit the ICMJE Disclosure Form for each article so that the journal can be informed of potential conflicts of interest.

Andrology Bulletin also requires and encourages those involved in the peer review process of submitted articles to disclose any existing or potential conflicts of interest that could lead to possible bias.

The Editorial Board will consider potential conflicts of interest among editors, authors, or reviewers, addressing these issues within the framework of relevant COPE flowcharts and ICMJE recommendations.

USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

The Role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Article Preparation

Andrology Bulletin follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and WAME regarding the use of AI and AI-assisted technology in article preparation, specifically their recommendations on Chatbots and Generative AI in relation to Scientific Publications.

Use of AI Tools and Transparency

AI tools may only be used for limited tasks such as language editing and technical data processing. All such uses must be clearly stated in the article, specifying the name, version, and purpose of the tool. AI tools and/or articles generated or written by AI tools cannot be cited as authoritative sources or references within the article. The authors are solely responsible for the final content of the article. All outputs generated by artificial intelligence must be rigorously checked for actual errors, "illusions," and algorithmic biases before submission.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

Andrology Bulletin requires authors to disclose any financial support they received to conduct their research. This information should be included in the funding statement provided when the article is submitted to the journal.

The funding statement should include the name of any funding organization, grant numbers, and a description of each funder's role in the research. If a funder has no role in the research, this should also be stated in the statement. This information is important for readers to understand potential biases and conflicts of interest that may exist.

POST-PUBLICATION CORRECTION REQUESTS AND WITHDRAWALS

All post-publication correction requests are subject to review by the editorial board. The editorial board will review the request and decide whether the correction is necessary and appropriate.

Corrections

The decision to publish a revision will depend on the nature of the error, its potential impact on the article, and the availability of supporting evidence. The editorial board may also consult with authors, reviewers, and other experts as needed when making its decision. If the revision request is approved, the article in the journal's archive will be corrected.
The Editorial Board reviews cases according to the journal's policies, ICMJE, and COPE guidelines.

In the event of allegations of misconduct, the Editorial Board will follow the relevant COPE flowchart. When concerns are raised about an article published on a social media site, the journal will act in accordance with COPE's flowchart on how to respond to informers.

In some cases, an ombudsman may be appointed to resolve claims that cannot be resolved internally.

To investigate potential ethical violations, the editorial board may share information with other editors to conduct investigations more efficiently and effectively. If communication with the editor-in-chief is necessary, the editorial board will follow the relevant COPE recommendations. If the investigation confirms the concern, the editors may issue a withdrawal notice. The notice will be announced in the journal, and the article's registry will be updated. The article will remain in the journal's archives but will be clearly marked as withdrawn. The article's registry will also be updated in the relevant indexes to reflect the withdrawal.

Article Withdrawal Requests

Requests of withdrawal are reviewed by the journal's editorial board. For such a request, the authors must submit a letter, signed by all, to the journal editor stating their request and the reasons for the withdrawal. These will be processed promptly, and authors who make the request in good faith may assume their article has been withdrawn even if they do not receive a formal confirmation (or a response within a reasonable time) from the journal. It is important that authors do not submit their work for consideration to another journal until they have formally withdrawn their article. This happens after submitting their request and allowing a reasonable time for the journal to respond, in order to prevent potential conflicts of interest or duplicate publication.

Objections and Complaints

The journal's editorial board is responsible for handling objections and complaints in accordance with COPE's guidelines and recommendations. If an author has an objection or complaint, he/she should approach the editorial board directly to discuss the issue. The editorial board will review the case and make a decision in accordance with COPE guidelines.
The Editor is the final authority in deciding all appeals and complaints. In some cases, an ombudsman may be appointed to resolve claims that cannot be resolved internally. It is important to note that the journal follows a fair and transparent process in handling appeals and complaints, with the aim of protecting the integrity of the scientific record.

DISCLAIMER

The views or statements expressed in articles published in this journal reflect the views of the author(s) and do not reflect the views of the editors, editorial board, and/or publisher. The editors, editorial board, and publisher are not responsible for the content of the articles and do not necessarily endorse the views expressed therein. It is the authors' responsibility to ensure that the work is accurate and well-researched, and the views expressed in their articles are their own. The editors, editorial board, and publisher only provide a platform for authors to share their work with the scientific community.