The publication processes applied in the Journal of BEU Faculty of Theology constitute the basis for the development and distribution of knowledge in an impartial and reputable manner. The processes applied in this direction are directly reflected in the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions supporting the authors. Peer-reviewed studies are studies that embody and support the scientific method. At this point, it is important that all stakeholders of the process (authors, readers and researchers, publishers, referees and editors) comply with the standards for ethical principles. Within the scope of BEÜİFD publication ethics, all stakeholders are expected to carry the following ethical responsibilities.

The following ethical duties and responsibilities have been prepared in open access, taking into account the guidelines and policies published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

See also, Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive and 4th Turkey Editors' Workshop Decisions (25-27 December 2021).

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is a necessary building block in the development of a harmonised and respected knowledge network. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and their supporting institutes. Peer-reviewed articles support and shape the scientific method. It is therefore important for all parties involved in publishing, authors, journal editors, referees and publishing organisations, to agree on standards of expected ethical behaviour.

Duties of the Publisher
• Academic studies submitted for publication are evaluated according to purely academic and scientific criteria, and the authors' gender, religion, race, ethnic origin, citizenship, political views, and institutional relations are not used as criteria in any way.
• The editor and editorial team do not provide any information about the submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the author, referees, potential referees and editorial members.
• The contents of the manuscripts submitted to BÜİFD but not published cannot be used by the editor and editorial team members without the consent of the authors.
• The editor and editorial team have full responsibility and authority to accept or reject a manuscript.
• The editor and editorial team should not be in a conflict of interest regarding the accepted or rejected studies, and only studies that will contribute to the field should be accepted.
• When errors are found in the submitted manuscripts, they should support the publication or withdrawal of the correction, keep the names of the referees confidential and prevent plagiarism.

Duties of the Referee(s)
• Referees' opinions make a great contribution to the decision of the Editorial Board (editorial team) of BÜİFD whether the submitted work will be published or not. Reviewers' revision requests are communicated to the authors and help to improve the academic quality of the manuscript. However, the Editorial Board of BÜİFD retains the decision on whether a study will be published or not. Any revision that the Editorial Board does not deem sufficient according to BÜİFD publication criteria may be grounds for rejection of the manuscript.
• Referees are given 15 days for the evaluation process, but referees who request additional time may be given additional time according to the publication plan of the journal.
• Referees who think that they are not qualified to evaluate the manuscript submitted to them for evaluation, or who think that they cannot complete the evaluation within the allotted time, should notify the editor of BÜİFD immediately.
• The manuscripts submitted to the referees for evaluation should be regarded as a confidential trust and should not be shared with others without the permission and consent of the BÜİFD Editorial Board.
• The contents of unpublished manuscripts should not be used in the referees' own work without the author's permission
• Referee evaluations should be objective and constructive, based on the academic competence of the manuscript. They should not criticise the personalities of the authors.
• Reviewers should provide explanations and arguments to support their evaluations. In this context, the manuscripts should be analysed in terms of academic-scientific competence, consistency, use of terminology, language and style, and title-subject coherence.
• BÜİFD does not evaluate referee reports that do not form an opinion, personalised evaluations, and unjustified approvals and rejections and re-review such manuscripts.
• Referees should identify the works that are not quoted by the authors in the works they evaluate. In this context, they should draw the editor's attention to any similarities or overlaps between the work under review and a previously published work.
• Privileged information and ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal gain.
• Reviews should be impartial. Reviewers should not have any conflict of interest with the research, the authors, and/or research funders.

Duties of the Authors
• Authors should provide accurate information about the work submitted to the journal and provide an objective discussion of the significance of the work.
• Authors should accurately convey the raw material they have used, provide sufficient explicit details for other researchers, and provide citations. Deliberately providing false information is a breach of scientific ethics.
• Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original, but if they have drawn on other work, they should cite that work in the most appropriate way.
• By submitting a manuscript to a journal for publication, the author also declares that the manuscript is original. Any form of plagiarism is a very serious offence. Studies that are found to contain plagiarism are not evaluated in the journal, and when it is detected after publication, the necessary places are informed.
• An author should not publish a study containing the same research in more than one place. It is unacceptable behaviour to re-publish a study with the same essence or to submit the same study to more than one journal simultaneously with a request for publication.
• Acknowledgement and acknowledgement of all works used in a study is mandatory. Authors must cite each publication cited in the submitted manuscript.
• Authorship is limited to those who have made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of a work. Other contributors must be listed as co-authors. Those who participated in some aspect of the formation of the work should be referred to as 'contributors'. In addition, the author submitting the manuscript to the journal for publication should obtain the consent of the other contributors.
• All authors should disclose in their research manuscripts any financial or other conflicts of interest that they believe may affect the conclusions or interpretation of the manuscript. All sources of financial support received for the study should be clearly indicated.
• The author who detects a serious error or inaccuracy in a published work is obliged to notify the editor and the Editorial Board immediately. In this case, the author is responsible for cooperating with BÜİFD in either withdrawing the manuscript or publishing a correction.
• In multi-authored studies, all authors should contribute significantly to the research. A statement that all data in the study are true and authentic is required. All authors must ensure retraction and correction of errors.
• Publication of the same research in more than one journal should not be attempted and should comply with the ethics of scientific research and publication.
• Actions against scientific research and publication ethics are as follows:

 a) Plagiarism: Presenting the ideas, methods, data, applications, writings, forms or works of others as one's own work in whole or in part without citing the authors in accordance with scientific rules,
b) Forgery: Producing data that is not based on research, editing or modifying the submitted or published work based on unreal data, reporting or publishing them, presenting research that has not been conducted as if it has been conducted,
c) Distortion: Falsifying research records and data obtained, showing methods, devices and materials that were not used in the research as if they were used, not evaluating data that are not in accordance with the research hypothesis, manipulating data and/or results to fit the relevant theory or assumptions, falsifying or shaping the results of the research in line with the interests of the persons and organisations receiving support,
d) Re-publication: Presenting more than one work containing the same results of research as separate works in associate professorship exam evaluations and academic promotions,
e) Slicing: Presenting the results of research as separate works in associate professorship exam evaluations and academic promotions by inappropriately dividing the results of research into parts in a way that disrupts the integrity of the research and by making many publications without citing each other,
f) Unfair authorship: Including people who have not made active contributions among the authors, not including people who have made active contributions among the authors, changing the order of authors in an unjustified and inappropriate manner, removing the names of active contributors from the work during publication or in subsequent editions, using his/her influence to have his/her name included among the authors even though he/she has not made active contributions,
g) Other types of ethical violations: Failure to clearly indicate the persons, institutions or organisations providing support and their contributions to the research in the publications of research conducted with support; failure to comply with ethical rules in research on humans and animals; failure to respect patient rights in publications; sharing the information contained in a work assigned to review as a referee with others before publication; misuse of resources, places, facilities and devices provided or allocated for scientific research; making completely groundless, unwarranted and deliberate accusations of ethical violations (YÖK Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive, Article 8).