ASPER meticulously applies the principles set forth by the "Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive" and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in fulfilling its ethical duties and responsibilities.

Manuscripts submitted to the journal are first subjected to a preliminary review by the editor-in-chief in terms of form and content, and if found to be in compliance with the journal's guidelines, are sent to at least two reviewers in the relevant field. The peer review is conducted according to a double-blind review process, in which the confidentiality of author and reviewer identities is maintained throughout the evaluation. Based on the reports received from reviewers, a decision is made to publish (accept), request revisions (revision), or not publish (reject) the manuscript, and this decision is communicated to the authors within a maximum of two months. Manuscripts for which revisions are requested are not published if the revisions are not completed within the specified period. Manuscripts that receive a positive outcome in the peer review process are queued for publication. The views expressed in published articles and the scientific responsibility for their content belong to the author or authors and bear no relation to the journal. Once a decision has been made to publish a manuscript, the authors are considered to have transferred their publication rights to the journal. Articles published in the journal may not be reproduced in any way or republished elsewhere in print or electronic form without the written permission of the journal management. Authors who submit manuscripts are considered to have accepted these principles.

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

• Authors must not have published or submitted for publication the manuscripts they send to the journal anywhere else.
• Authors must have cited all quotations used in their manuscripts.
• Authors are considered to have declared that the manuscript is their own work, that they have not engaged in plagiarism in any form, that all responsibility arising from plagiarism belongs to them, and that the journal bears no responsibility in this regard.
• Authors must guarantee that they have made a scientific contribution to the manuscript, and it must be understood that all authors share equal responsibility for the manuscript.
• The corresponding author must guarantee that all co-authors named in the manuscript have consented to the publication and to being named as co-authors. All individuals who have made significant contributions to the work must be named as co-authors, while others must be acknowledged in the acknowledgements section.
• Authors are obliged to disclose any organisations supporting their submitted work, financial sources, or any conflict of interest.
• Authors must provide access to the datasets included in the manuscript if deemed necessary.
• Authors must have prepared the manuscripts submitted for publication in the journal in accordance with research and publication ethics guidelines. Ethical committee approval for research involving human and animal subjects, where required by clinical and experimental study designs, must have been obtained separately for each, and this approval must be stated and documented in the manuscript.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

• Any reviewer who does not consider themselves qualified to review a manuscript or who knows that a timely review will not be possible must inform the editor of this situation and withdraw from the review process.
• Reviewers are obliged to keep the manuscripts they receive confidential and not to use information obtained during the review process for personal gain.
• Reviewers must not share their reports or information about the manuscript with others and must not communicate directly with authors without the editor's permission.
• Reviewers must exercise care regarding potential ethical issues in the manuscript under review and bring such matters to the editor's attention. This includes substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published work of which the reviewer has personal knowledge.
• The review must be conducted objectively, personal criticism of authors must be avoided, and evaluations must be written in a constructive, honest, and respectful manner.
• Reviewers must consult the editor before agreeing to review a manuscript in cases where a potential conflict of interest arising from a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with any of the authors exists.

Ethical Responsibilities of the Editorial Board

• It is the responsibility of the editorial board to decide which manuscripts will be published in the journal. The editorial board must evaluate manuscripts independently of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political views. Decisions must be based on the accuracy, validity, and significance of the manuscript and its suitability to the scope of the journal, and current legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism must also be observed.
• The editor or any member of the editorial board must not disclose information about a manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors, and the publisher.
• Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the editor's or any editorial board member's own research without the express written consent of the author.