The following ethical duties and responsibilities are taken into consideration as open access guides and policies (such as "Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" and "COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors") published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has been prepared.

• Articles submitted to the journal must be original and scientific work of the author(s). It is essential that the information created in a scientific study is new, proposes a new method or adds a new dimension to existing knowledge.

• If authors have used the works and/or statements of others, they should ensure that this is cited correctly and appropriately. The list of references should be complete. Plagiarism and fake data should not be included.

• Plagiarism takes many forms, from writing someone else's publication like the author's to copying (without attributing) important parts of someone else's work, or in other words, getting the result of research conducted by others. Any kind of plagiarism, fraudulent or deliberate misrepresentation constitutes unethical publishing behavior and cannot be accepted.

• The similarity rate in the plagiarism of all studies submitted to InULR should be at most 15%. Articles with a similarity rate above this rate are directly rejected by the journal secretary.

• Articles with a similarity rate of 15% or less are directed to the relevant editor after spelling and language control. Even if the similarity rate of the article is not over 15%, the editors may ask the authors to make corrections regarding the relevant parts of their work or remove the work from the publication process after the similarity report evaluation.

• If there is a suspicion or a proof of plagiarism in a published article, the editor in chief of InULR initiates the necessary processes and sends the situation to the indexes where the journal is scanned together with the relevant institutions and authorities.

All responsibility of the work belongs to the authors. Studies should be prepared in accordance with the international scientific ethical rules, which we have mentioned on this page. Under the heading "Research and Publication Ethics Statement" before the bibliography in all submitted articles, the statement should be included below.

"The author(s) of the article declare that they comply with the scientific, ethical, and quotation rules of Inonu University Law Review - InULR in all processes of the article and that they do not make any falsification on the data collected. In addition, they (he/she) declare(s) that Inonu University Law Review and its editorial board have no responsibility for any ethical violations that may be encountered, and that this study has not been evaluated or published in any academic publication environment other than Inonu University Law Review”

• ETHICS COMMITTEE APPROVAL must be obtained for research in all disciplines and for clinical and experimental studies, human and animal studies that require an ethical committee decision, THIS APPROVAL MUST BE SPECIFIED AND CERTIFIED IN THE ARTICLE. In studies requiring ethics committee approval, information about the permission (name of the board, date, and number) should be included in the method section and also on the first/last page of the article.

Studies Requiring Ethics Committee Permission

1. All kinds of research are conducted with qualitative or quantitative approaches that require data collection from participants using questionnaires, interviews, focus group work, observation, experimentation, and interview techniques.

2. Research using humans and animals (including material/data) for experimental or other scientific purposes.

3. Research on animals

4. Retrospective studies in accordance with the law on the use of personal data

Status of Studies That Do Not Require Ethics Committee Permission

If the study does not require the permission of the ethics committee, instead of the ETHICS COMMITTEE APPROVAL CERTIFICATE, which will be requested from the authors at the time of article submission, the "ETHICS COMMITTEE APPROVAL IS NOT REQUIRED DECLARATION FORM" should be uploaded signed by the responsible author. This statement should be written at the end of the article under the heading "Ethics Committee Approval".

• When submitting the article to our journal, authors must sign the "COPYRIGHT TRANSFER FORM" and upload it through the system. All authors must sign this form.

• Authors are expected to carefully consider the list and order of authors before submitting their articles and to present the exact list of authors at the time of original submission. Adding or removing author names from the author list should only be done before the article submission.

• Contribution rates of all the authors of the article to the article process should be stated under the heading "Authors' Contributions" before the bibliography at the end of the article (This statement will be stated in the latest revision file to be sent to the layout editor after the acceptance of the article, as the referees should not know the names of the authors due to the principle of blind review.)

• All authors must see and approve the final version of the submitted article before submission.

• The text, figures, tables, and documents contained in the article must not violate the copyrights of other persons.

• Authors are encouraged to write a thank you text at the end of the article after the article is accepted, thanking the person(s), or institutions, who supported the process of the article. The thank you text written to the people should be under the title of Acknowledgements. The text of acknowledgment to the institutions from which Fund-Funding has been received should be written under the title of FUNDING (For example, "This study was supported by the [Fund Agency] under the Grant [Fund Number].")

• If there are conflicts of interest (or common interest) regarding the submitted article, the reason should be stated in the cover letter. If no conflict of interest is declared, the statement “No potential conflict of interest has been declared by the authors” will be added to the end of the article while the article is being prepared for publication.

• When an author notices an important error or mistake in his or her published work, she/he should immediately notify the editor or publisher of the journal and cooperate with the editor to correct the article.

• Raw data and raw information can be requested from the authors regarding their articles during the evaluation process. In such a case, authors should be present to present the expected information and documents.

• It is the editor's responsibility to decide which of the articles submitted to the journal will be published. The editor will review articles regardless of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnicity, nationality, or political philosophy. The decision will be based on the article's importance, originality, clarity, the validity of the study, and relevance to the journal's scope. They should take care that the study contributes to readers, researchers, and practitioners. Current legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism should also be considered. Editors should not show any privileges to the authors of the articles submitted to the journal and should fulfill their duties in a balanced, objective, and fair manner.

• The editor should not reveal any information about a submitted article to anyone other than the relevant author, referees, potential referees, and publisher.

• Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript will not be used by the editor or editorial board for their own research purposes without the express written permission of the author.

• Editors should strive to continuously improve InULR and increase the quality of the publication.

• Editors are responsible for the determination and implementation of all policies of the journal.

• During the evaluation of the studies, they should not bring together people with whom there might be a relationship. Editors who make the final decision about the articles are expected to have no personal, professional, or financial ties with the authors of the study.

• They should include the support or sponsored work in the evaluation process in the same way as any other study.

• If the study is not prepared in line with the journal's purpose and scope, they should reject the study directly.

• They should take the necessary measures to prevent possible conflicts of interest and evaluate the existing statements if any.

• They should apply the necessary sanctions in case of ethical violations related to the study.

• During the evaluation process, they must appoint an arbitrator according to the blind arbitration principle and respect the principle of confidentiality.

• In order to evaluate the studies objectively, editors should act by checking the appropriateness of the referees' field of expertise and the subject of the study, not according to the relationship of interest when determining the referees.

• Editors should work on the continuous updating and expansion of the referee pool.

• When publishing issues in the journal, they should include not only articles in certain fields but also a wide range of articles in every field within the scope of the journal.

• They must ensure the protection of personal data in articles reviewed; they must protect individual data of authors, referees, and readers.

• They should take necessary precautions against people who abuse their job.

• Editors should provide as much feedback as possible to authors 'or referees' questions about the process. They should also be open to negative criticism.

• Editors should check the submission files, and make a referee assignment after making sure that the files except the article file are complete. It should be checked whether the author has uploaded all the additional statements requested by the journal, and signed.

• In all processes of the articles, they should act according to the rules of the journal's publication process.

All research articles submitted to InULR are evaluated according to the double-blind peer-review principle. Referees are expected to fill in a referee evaluation form that includes their contribution to the fields under the scope of the journal, their views on whether the article is worth publishing, and their justification for these views. In this process, referees are required to pay attention to the following ethical responsibilities and make their evaluations accordingly.

• To contribute to the editor's decision-making process by examining the work sent to them for evaluation, objectively and objectively (regardless of religion, language, race, gender, political opinion, economic interest) within the given time.

• To accept the evaluation of only studies related to the field of expertise

• To provide constructive and developing suggestions to increase the quality of the study it evaluates.

• In accordance with the principle of confidentiality, they should destroy the study after the evaluation process, but if they want to use the study after it is published, they should use it.

• When referees understand that there is a conflict of interest or a common interest, they should decline to review the article and inform the editor of this. Reviewers should not consider articles that contain conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or link with any author, company or institution associated with the articles.

• They should make the assessment in a constructive and courteous language. They should not make derogatory personal comments (especially on articles that are rejected) that contain hostility, slander, and libel.

• All articles received for review should be treated as confidential documents. It should not be discussed or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor.

• Reviewers should identify cases where the relevant published work cited in the article is not cited in the reference section. They should indicate whether observations or arguments from other publications accompany the relevant source. Referees will inform the editor about significant similarities or overlaps between the reviewed article and other published articles for which they have personal information.

InULR only reviews research articles written in Turkish, English, German, and French.

In InULR, which has been published since 2010, a volume has been published every year and each volume consists of two issues (January - June, July - December).

InULR is an Open Access journal that aims to ensure the visibility of scientific studies by the public and to increase their impact and is aware of the need for information to be easily accessible in order to improve science and strengthen the scientific communication network.

InULR does not charge the author/authors at any stage (submission, evaluation, and publication of articles) for publication procedures.

• PRE-EVALUATION PROCESS

Articles submitted to InULR primarily fall into the journal secretary's system. The journal secretary checks whether the files required for article submission are fully uploaded to the system by the author and whether the file names are appropriate. if there are deficiencies or errors in the files or if the similarity rate of the article is over 15%, the article is sent again to the author to make the necessary updates.

If the similarity rate is appropriate and there is no problem in the files, the article is sent to the Spelling and Language Editor after this step. The Spelling and Language editor is responsible for checking the suitability of the article to the article writing template of the journal and the writing language. If the Spelling and Language Editor has a positive opinion after checking it, it sends the article to the Statistical Editor in order to evaluate the article statistically. (If there is a problem in the writing style or language of the article, the article is sent again to the author to make a correction.) After making the evaluation, the statistical editor directs the article to the editor related to the field of the article. From here on, the status of the article appears as IN EDITOR. So the article has been pre-checked.

While in the secretary step, the maximum time given to the secretary for article control is 10 days. During this time, the status of the article appears as IN SECRETARY. When the article is sent again to the author, the status of the article will be RESUBMISSION REQUESTED, and the author is given 1 week to respond to this request. The author accepting the request is given 15 days to resubmit the article. During this period, the status of the article will appear as UNDER RESUBMISSION (WITH AUTHOR). The additional time to be given to authors who do not return within the specified periods is 5 days. The maximum period that can be given to the Copy editor or Statistics editor is 15 days.

The editor checks whether the article is scientifically sufficient, whether it is a study prepared in line with the purpose and scope of the journal, and its original value, taking into account the similarity report of the article sent to it. After this check, if he/she has a positive opinion, the IN REVIEW step begins. (If he has a negative opinion, he/she rejects the article without taking it into the referee process.) The editor can also appoint a section editor to perform all these checks, if necessary.

The maximum time required for the editor to take over the article (Checked Step) is 10 days. The maximum time (Step with Editor) required for the editor to continue processing after taking the article is 10 days.

The editor of the article or the section editor assigned by it, after receiving the article, sends an invitation to at least two referees related to the subject of the article to examine the article.The response period of the referee to the invitation sent for evaluation (accepting or rejecting the evaluation of the article) is 7 days. During this time, the status of the article will appear as "Reviewer Invited".The article evaluation form is automatically sent to the referee who accepted the invitation. (In this process, the status of the article appears as "Under Review".)

The review period for the article is 15 days. 5 days additional time is given to the referees who do not return within the specified periods. The following principle is taken into consideration in the referee process.

InULR works on the principle of double-blind arbitration. This means that the author(s) of the article will not know the identities of the referees who will evaluate the article, and the referees will not know the identity of the author(s). The aim here is to have an unbiased assessment.

In order to serve this purpose, authors should prepare an article file without giving their identities. They should remove identifying information, including author names, from filenames. In addition, document properties must be anonymized. To do this, from the FILE menu in Microsoft Word, select CHECK PROBLEMS-REVIEW DOCUMENT-CHECK DOCUMENT INSPECTOR-CHECK and remove all information that may evoke the identity of the author. Attention should also be paid to the citations made within the article in order to hide the author(s) of the presented study.. For example, when the authors refer to their own works, instead of saying "…… in our study in [5]", they should use the expression. "in [5] …….". Author and institution information should not be included in the visuals in the article. Headers and footers should not contain personal information. When working according to this system, discrimination that may arise from the demographic characteristics or gender of the author is minimized. No pressure is placed on the author of the article or the referee reviewing the article.

Referees who accept the evaluation access the article file through the system (in this process, the referee cannot see the names of the article authors on the system) Examines the article within 15 days and uploads the completed referee evaluation form to the system.

The number of referee reviews required for the decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the article is determined by the editor of the article. The status of the article that has the desired number of referee evaluation forms appears as READY FOR DECISION. The time given for processing in this step is 7 days. The maximum period given for the editor to make a decision (DECISION PENDING) is 7 days.

The editor has to make a decision in this process in line with the referee reports. It can also add additional opinions. The referee notifies the reports and suggestions to the author in a decision letter. With this letter, the article can be accepted or rejected. The editor may request a revision from the author if he wishes. The period that can be given to the author to respond to the revision request is 7 days. The period given to the author who accepts the revision request is 15 days. (In this process, the status of the article appears as WITH AUTHOR.) After all these steps, accepted articles are transferred to the publishing process.

It is the process in which accepted articles are prepared for publication in the relevant issue. During this period, the status of the article appears as "In Production". In this process, the publishing editor, layout editor, and final reader are involved. The layout editor is responsible for making the article ready for publication as a shape (page layout, placement of tables and images in the article, the layout of the references, giving the page numbers according to the priority of the article acceptance date, placing the publisher's logo on the article).

The article whose layout has been completed is sent to the Proofreader for a final review of the article in terms of grammar, spelling rules, and semantic integrity, and to identify possible spelling errors. After completing the last reader process, the journal publishing editor presents the final version of the article to be published in the relevant issue on the magazine web page in EARLY VIEW for the author to see. During this process, minor errors that may be present in the article are detected and there is still time to correct them. If the author detects any errors in this process, he should notify the technical communication officer of the journal by mail. The editorial editor receiving information from technical communication will make the necessary corrections. Articles can wait up to 15 days in EARLY VIEW. It is then published in the relevant issue. There is a possibility of correcting potential errors ONLY 5 DAYS after the issue is published. However, authors are expected to report their suggestions for correction while the article is in EARLY VIEW.