The journal fully agrees to adhere to national and international ethical principles for scientific publication and considers this adherence a fundamental requirement for all submitted works. Peer-reviewed studies are those that support and implement the scientific method. At this point, it is of great importance that all parties involved in the publication process (authors, readers and researchers, publishers, reviewers, and editors) comply with ethical principles. Our journal adheres to national and international principles and regulations on research and publication ethics. It complies with the Press Law, the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works, and the Directive on Scientific Research and Publication Ethics of Higher Education Institutions of Turkish Republic. Furthermore, our journal has adopted the International Ethical Publishing Principles published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA).

In this context, articles submitted to the journal that fall under the following categories and definitions must include Ethics Committee compliance reports from their respective institutions:

• All research conducted with qualitative or quantitative approaches requiring data collection from participants using techniques such as surveys, interviews, focus groups, observations, experiments, or interviews,
• The use of humans and animals (including materials/data) for experimental or other scientific purposes,
• Clinical research conducted on humans,
• Research conducted on animals,
• Retrospective studies in accordance with the law on the protection of personal data.

Additionally:

• It must be indicated that "Informed Consent Forms" were obtained in case reports,
• Permission must be obtained and specified for the use of others' scales, questionnaires, photographs, etc.,
• Compliance with copyright regulations for the use of intellectual and artistic works must be indicated.

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

Articles submitted to the journal undergo a completely anonymous double-blind peer review process. In this system, the editor-in-chief is the only person with oversight of every stage of the publication process. Neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities; this prevents reviewers from evaluating the work with bias. Furthermore, since authors do not know who the reviewers are, the possibility of them attempting to influence the reviewers through unofficial channels is eliminated. From this perspective, the double-blind peer review process is considered to ensure objective evaluation and equality of opportunity.

Each submitted manuscript is evaluated by at least two reviewers considered experts in the relevant field. If there is a discrepancy between the evaluations of the two reviewers, a third reviewer is consulted. However, the editor-in-chief holds the final decision-making authority regarding the evaluation process for all manuscripts.

Initial Evaluation

The relevant editor or journal secretary examines the submitted manuscript to determine its suitability regarding the journal's aims and scope, adherence to formatting guidelines, and proficiency in both English and Turkish. Manuscripts found not to comply with the journal's publication guidelines and policies following this review are returned to the corresponding author.

Preliminary Evaluation Process

During the preliminary evaluation process, manuscripts that make a positive impression on the editor are forwarded to the field editors. Field editors examine the manuscript for scientific suitability—assessing sections such as the abstract, introduction, materials/methods, discussion, and conclusion—as well as for formatting compliance. Manuscripts deemed suitable following this review are assigned reviewers proposed by the field editors, and the manuscript enters the peer review process.

Peer Review Process

Based on the content of the manuscripts, at least two reviewers who are experts in the subject and have recent work in the relevant field are selected. Reviewer recommendations from the section editor are evaluated by the editor-in-chief, and the relevant reviewers are assigned to the manuscripts. Reviewers evaluate the work and submit reports.

Reviewer Reports

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript in terms of scientific merit, objectives, materials/methods, results, and discussion. The manuscript may be accepted outright, require revision, or be rejected. If revisions are requested, the reviewers' recommendations are conveyed to the authors, who are then asked to revise their work. The authors' revisions are re-examined by the reviewers, who then report their recommendations to the editor. In the event of a disagreement between the assigned reviewers, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer.

Plagiarism policy

The UFUSOBED journal does not accept manuscripts with a plagiarism rate exceeding 20%.
Plagiarism checks are conducted using Turnitin or intihal.net. Plagiarism is the use of others' published or unpublished ideas, words (or other elements of intellectual property) without citing the source or obtaining permission, and presenting them as new and original ideas or expressions rather than material taken from an existing source. The purpose and effect of plagiarism is to mislead the reader regarding the plagiarist's own contributions. This applies regardless of whether the ideas or expressions in question were taken from abstracts, research grant applications, Institutional Review Board (ethics committee) applications, or texts published or unpublished in any format. Plagiarism is a form of scientific misconduct and must be treated as such.
Direct plagiarism involves copying text verbatim. Mosaic plagiarism involves taking ideas and opinions, as well as specific words or phrases, from an original source without attributing them to the author.

Editors or reviewers may follow these steps to report an instance of plagiarism:
1. Submit both the original article and the article containing the plagiarism (with the plagiarized sections highlighted).
3. If the evidence of plagiarism is convincing, the editor should convene a disciplinary meeting.
4. The individual who committed the plagiarism is asked to provide an explanation.
6. If no response is received within the specified timeframe or if the explanation provided is unsatisfactory, the article is permanently rejected.
7. The author in question is blacklisted and barred from submitting articles to the journal for a minimum of five years.
8. The head of the author's institution (if applicable) is notified of the situation.

Publication Process

Accepted manuscripts are generally included in the next available issue.

Authors are not charged any fees during the article submission, evaluation, and publication processes. All of the journal's processes are free of charge.

Author Rights

Excluding Specific Reviewers from the Article Evaluation Process

Authors may request that their work not be sent to specific reviewers due to conflicts of interest or ethical concerns. Additionally, the relevant editor does not send the work for evaluation to reviewers who:

Have previously co-authored work with the author(s)

Stand to gain financial benefit from the publication of the work

Withdrawal

Authors may withdraw their work while it is still undergoing the evaluation process.

Appealing Reviewer Reports and Editorial Board Decisions

Authors have the right to appeal reviewer reports and editorial decisions at any time and under any circumstances. In such cases, authors are expected to submit their requests along with a justification. The relevant editor may initiate a new evaluation process if deemed necessary.