ASBÜ YUVA Uluslararası Aile Araştırmaları Dergisi (YUVA) is an international, electronic, double-blind peer-reviewed journal publishing original research articles, translations, and book reviews in the fields of family philosophy, family law, family psychology, family sociology, theology, and children’s and youth literature. Articles submitted to YUVA are published fully open-access and free of charge following double-blind peer review processes.

The publication processes of the journal are conducted in accordance with the Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive and the "Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing" of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

• Scope and Suitability: Manuscripts submitted to YUVA must fall within the specified aims and scope of the journal.
• Originality and Plagiarism Screening: Submitted works must be original, not previously published elsewhere, and not under consideration by another journal. All accepted manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using the iThenticate software. Similarity reports are evaluated by the editorial board; manuscripts with unethical similarity are rejected or withdrawn from the process.
• Citations and References: All sources used in the manuscript must be appropriately cited and referenced in line with academic standards. Copyrighted materials must be used with necessary permissions in accordance with copyright laws.
• Copyright and License: Authors retain the copyright of their work. Authors agree to publish their articles under the Creative Commons CC BY-NC 4.0 license and grant the journal the right of first publication. All authors must sign and upload the "Author Agreement and Copyright Form" during submission.
• Declaration of Interest (Conflict of Interest): Authors are required to declare any financial, personal, or institutional conflicts of interest that might influence their study during the submission process.
• Ethics Committee Approval: For all studies involving human or animal subjects, including research requiring data collection via surveys, interviews, focus groups, or observations, "Ethics Committee Approval" must be obtained from an authorized committee. The date, reference number, and issuing institution of this approval must be clearly stated in the methodology section of the manuscript.
• Reporting Errors and Corrections: If authors discover significant errors in their published or under-evaluation manuscripts, they must promptly notify the editorial board and cooperate with the editors to correct or retract the paper.

Complaints, Appeals, and Post-Publication Policies

• Complaints and Appeals Process: Any complaints or appeals from authors, reviewers, or readers regarding editorial decisions, journal processes, or ethical concerns are carefully investigated by the editorial board. Appeals are handled in accordance with COPE guidelines, and written feedback is provided to the relevant parties.
• Corrections, Retractions, and Post-Publication Changes: In case of errors affecting scientific accuracy in published articles, correction (erratum) or retraction processes are executed according to COPE standards. Ethical misconduct, such as plagiarism, duplication, fabrication, falsification, guest authorship, or undisclosed conflicts of interest detected at any stage, will lead to the rejection of the manuscript and necessary institutional reporting.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

• Double-Blind Review and Confidentiality: YUVA operates on a double-blind peer review model. Reviewers are required to maintain the strict confidentiality of the manuscripts under evaluation. No information or content regarding the reviewed papers may be shared with third parties without the prior consent of the editorial board.
• Independence and Impartiality: Every manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers must perform their assessments impartially and objectively, independent of the authors' academic background, affiliation, gender, nationality, or personal beliefs.
• Conflict of Interest: If reviewers identify any financial, personal, or academic conflict of interest (such as past collaborations or joint projects) regarding the manuscript, they must promptly inform the editorial board and decline the review request.
• Timeliness and Constructive Language: Reviewers must complete their evaluations within the allocated timeframe. Review reports must be written in a constructive, scientific, and objective tone, avoiding any offensive or personal comments directed at the authors.

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors

• Ultimate Responsibility and Decision-Making: The Editor-in-Chief is ultimately responsible for the quality and publication integrity of all content published in the journal, including special issues. Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts objectively, based solely on scientific merit and alignment with the journal's scope.
• Transparency of the Peer Review Process: Editors guarantee that every manuscript undergoes a fair, double-blind peer review process conducted by at least two independent reviewers. If the list of reviewers is published, their names and institutional affiliations must be fully disclosed.
• Control of Endogeny (Internal Authorship Ratio): To maintain scientific objectivity, the editorial board is committed to keeping the internal authorship ratio low. No more than 25% of the research articles published in either of the latest two issues may have editors, editorial board members, or reviewers as authors.
• Handling Plagiarism and Misconduct: Editors meticulously investigate suspected plagiarism and screen all accepted works using iThenticate. Any complaints or appeals regarding ethical misconduct are resolved in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Automated Tools

• For Authors: Authors must explicitly declare during the submission process if they used generative AI technologies or large language models (LLMs) in the preparation of their manuscript (beyond simple language polishing, editing, and formatting). AI tools cannot be credited as co-authors and cannot be cited as scientific sources. Authors bear direct responsibility for verifying the accuracy and originality of any AI-generated outputs.
• For Reviewers and Editors: Reviewers and editors are strictly prohibited from using generative AI tools to write peer-review reports, conduct evaluations, or assist in editorial decisions. While the editorial board may utilize automated tools to detect integrity issues such as text similarity (plagiarism), image manipulation, or duplication, the final verification and assessment must always be conducted manually by expert editors.