The Ankara University Journal of Real Estate Studies (AU-JRES) upholds the principles of academic transparency, integrity, and accountability. In this context, the journal adheres to the ethical guidelines set forth by the Directive on Scientific Research and Publication Ethics of the Turkish Council of Higher Education (YÖK) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The use of AI-based generative tools or large language models (LLMs) to write any part of a manuscript (e.g., abstract, literature review, results, etc.) is not permitted. The inclusion of AI-generated visual content or substantial AI-produced material in manuscripts is strictly prohibited. The use of AI tools for the direct generation or reporting of statistical results is not acceptable. However, authors may utilize AI-based tools in the data analysis process, provided that they are applied to the authors’ own datasets and do not replace the researcher’s role in interpretation. The use of AI tools for language editing and clarity improvement is permitted, as it is comparable to conventional spelling and grammar-checking tools. In such cases, full responsibility for the content remains with the author(s).

• Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts solely based on their academic merit, regardless of the author(s)’ nationality, ethnicity, religious belief, political views, gender, or institutional affiliation.

• The editorial process is conducted fairly and impartially, without allowing any form of discrimination.

• The decision to accept or reject a manuscript for publication is made by the editorial board.

• These decisions are based on the journal’s publication and ethical policies, as well as the scientific quality, validity, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope, and are always justified.

• Editors will recuse themselves from handling a manuscript in the event of a conflict of interest with the author(s), reviewer(s), or funder(s).

• Editors and editorial board members will only share manuscript information with those directly involved in the editorial correspondence.

• The journal adheres to a double-blind peer review policy; the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the process.

• All manuscripts are reviewed by at least two reviewers who are experts in the relevant field, under the double-blind review system.

• Reviewer comments are shared with authors unless they include offensive or defamatory language.

• Reasonable requests by authors to exclude specific reviewers will be considered.

• If a published article is later reported to be unethical, an investigation is initiated.

• Based on COPE guidelines, necessary actions such as clarifications, corrections, or retractions will be undertaken.

• The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the journal’s content and publication schedule.

• No external organization or political influence should interfere with editorial decisions.

• Editors are responsible for the continuous improvement of the journal’s quality and for meeting the expectations of both readers and authors.

• Reviewers must conduct the evaluation process with impartiality, professionalism, scientific objectivity, and courtesy.

• They should avoid personal criticism, discrimination, or subjective remarks.

• Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents and should not be shared with third parties.

• Unpublished content must not be used in the reviewer’s personal research without the explicit written consent of the author(s).

• Reviewers who decline an invitation to review are also bound by the obligation of confidentiality.

• If reviewers have any conflict of interest (e.g., with the author(s) or their affiliated institution), they must decline the review and inform the editor.

• They should not participate in the review process if there is a situation of competition, collaboration, or personal relationship with the author(s).

• Reviewers must inform the editor as soon as possible whether they accept or decline the review invitation.

• If they accept, they should complete the review within the specified time, or notify the editor in a timely manner if they are unable to do so.

• Reviewers must provide clear, well-reasoned, and constructive feedback to support editorial decisions.

• Where appropriate, they should offer suggestions to help the author(s) improve the manuscript.

• If reviewers suspect any research or publication ethics violations (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, defamation, copyright infringement), they must inform the editor.

• If reviewers notice similarities with another published or submitted manuscript, they must alert the editor.

• They should also point out any uncited quotations or missing references in the manuscript.

• Reviewers are encouraged to draw attention to important sources in the literature that may have been overlooked.

• Reviewers must adhere to double-blind review principles, maintaining anonymity and confidentiality throughout the process.

• Any information or data obtained during the review process must be used only for the purpose of reviewing the manuscript, and not for any other purpose.

• If reviewers feel they lack sufficient subject expertise or cannot conduct a timely and thorough review, they should inform the editor and decline the review invitation.

• Submitted works must be original, and all data used should be presented accurately, objectively, and completely.

• The research methodology, data, and findings should be described in sufficient detail to allow replication by other researchers.

• In review and editorial articles, subjective opinions must be clearly identified, while maintaining scientific objectivity.

• Knowingly providing false or misleading statements is unethical and unacceptable.

• Authors must submit only original work and properly cite the ideas, findings, or data of others.

• All forms of plagiarism—including direct, indirect, and self-plagiarism—are considered ethical violations.

• All submitted manuscripts undergo plagiarism screening. Any manuscript with a similarity rate of 20% or higher will be rejected outright.

• The same manuscript must not be submitted to or published in more than one journal simultaneously.

• Except in special cases (e.g., clinical guidelines, translations), duplicate publication of the same content is considered unethical.

• Authors must respond to reviewer comments respectfully and make all requested revisions thoroughly and carefully when a “revise and resubmit” decision is issued.

• Authors must respond promptly and fully to editorial requests for raw data, ethical approvals, patient consents, or any other supporting documents.

• If a significant error or inaccuracy is discovered in a published article, the author(s) must immediately notify the editor and cooperate with correction or retraction procedures.

• In the case of serious errors, the article may be withdrawn from publication.

• Authors agree to comply with all ethical guidelines, including the Directive on Scientific Research and Publication Ethics issued by the Turkish Council of Higher Education (YÖK).

• Scientific responsibility for the content lies solely with the author(s); the journal does not assume liability in this regard.

• All individuals listed as authors must meet the following criteria:

o Have made a substantial scientific contribution to the research

o Contributed intellectually to the preparation of the manuscript

o Have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript

• Honorary or guest authorship (e.g., including a name without actual contribution) is considered unethical.

• The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all listed authors have approved the final manuscript and managing all communication with the journal throughout the submission and review process.

• Individuals who have not made a scientific contribution but have provided technical, financial, or administrative support should be acknowledged in the “Acknowledgments” section. Written permission must be obtained from those being acknowledged.

• Authors must clearly disclose any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that may have influenced the research (e.g., funding, consulting, partnerships).

• All sources of support—including financial grants and donations—must be acknowledged in the manuscript.

• A Conflict of Interest statement is mandatory for all submitted manuscripts.

• If no conflicts exist, authors must include the following statement in the manuscript, under the heading “Conflict of Interest”, as the final section before Acknowledgments: “The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.”.

• For all studies involving human or animal subjects, ethics committee approval must be obtained and explicitly stated in the manuscript.

• The ethics approval should be clearly indicated in both the “Methodology” section and on the final page of the manuscript, including the name of the committee, the date of approval, and the approval number.

• Participant identities must be protected at all times. In cases where informed consent is required (e.g., clinical or personal data), written consent must be obtained from participants and clearly noted in the manuscript

• Authors must be prepared to make data publicly available or share it upon request, if deemed necessary for the integrity or verification of the research.

• All data should be stored for a minimum of 10 years, preferably in institutional or trusted data repositories, in accordance with confidentiality and data protection principles.

Submission and tracking of manuscripts, in either Turkish or English, must be carried out through the journal's DergiPark page.

Before proceeding to peer review, all submissions to the Ankara University Journal of Real Estate Studies (AU-JRES) undergo a preliminary evaluation to ensure:

• Compliance with the journal’s formatting and submission guidelines

• A plagiarism report generated via intihal.net, excluding “direct quotations, overlapping parts with fewer than 5 words, and references”; the total similarity index must be below 10%, and no more than 5% similarity with any single source

• Relevance to the journal’s scope

The editorial team reserves the right to reject manuscripts prior to peer review if the manuscript does not meet the journal’s ethical, editorial, or formatting standards, falls outside the scope, or requires substantial improvement. Authors will be notified of such decisions within 7 days.

If the manuscript passes this initial check and aligns with the publication criteria, it will be sent to two independent reviewers under a double-blind peer review system within 15 days. During the review process, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. Reviewers are expected to submit their evaluations in the form of a report within 30 days. In case of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer will be consulted. Based on the feedback, the manuscript may be: Accepted, Rejected, or Returned to the author(s) for revision. If revision is required, authors are given a maximum of one month to submit a revised version that addresses the reviewers’ comments. This revision process may repeat until the manuscript receives a final acceptance or rejection decision. After receiving positive recommendations from at least two reviewers, the Editorial Board determines the issue in which the article will be published. Regardless of reviewer recommendations, the final decision to publish lies solely with the Editorial Board.