The peer-review process is a fundamental component of the scientific quality and credibility of Digital Healthcare Innovation and Technologies (DHIT). Reviewers play a critical role in evaluating the rigor, originality, ethical compliance, and scientific contribution of manuscripts submitted to the journal. All reviewers are selected based on their expertise in medicine, biomedical engineering, health informatics, digital health technologies, and other relevant interdisciplinary fields.

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers are expected to carefully consider their responsibilities and adhere to the ethical principles outlined below.

Reviewers are chosen from among experts with demonstrated competence in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript. All invited reviewers are informed about:

The responsibilities and ethical expectations of reviewers

The confidentiality requirements of the double-masked review process

The evaluation criteria specific to DHIT

The timeline and structure of the review procedure

By accepting the review invitation, reviewers confirm that they possess the required expertise to evaluate the manuscript objectively, respect the confidentiality of the process, and are committed to completing the evaluation within the allotted time.

Decision to Accept or Decline Review: Reviewers must respond within 7 days of receiving the invitation. Those who do not respond within this period are automatically assumed to have declined, and a new reviewer will be appointed.

Review completion time: Reviewers who accept the invitation must submit their evaluation within 60 days of the acceptance date.

Request for extension: Reviewers may request an extension of up to 10 days if additional time is needed.

Failure to submit a review: If no review or extension request is submitted within the timeline, the editorial office may assign a new reviewer.

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as strictly confidential documents.

Manuscripts, data, images, digital files, clinical information, and any supplementary material may not be shared, copied, stored, or used for personal research.

Communication with authors is strictly prohibited; all inquiries must be made through the editor via the DergiPark messaging system.

Reviewers must not evaluate a manuscript if they foresee any conflict of interest, including personal, financial, institutional, or collaborative relationships with the authors.

Any potential conflict must be immediately reported to the editorial board. COPE’s Conflict of Interest framework is followed for all such cases.

Reviewers are required to complete the DHIT review form, which includes both structured questions and space for detailed comments to the author. Reviewers must provide clear, evidence-based assessments and indicate whether revisions are needed.

In medical, clinical, and digital health manuscripts, reviewers must evaluate:

Title: Does it accurately reflect the study content?

Abstract: Is it clear, structured, and representative of the manuscript?

Scientific Quality: Are the methods, data, analyses, and conclusions sound?

Ethical committee approval (for clinical, human, or animal research)

Patient consent (when applicable)

Privacy, data protection, and confidentiality standards

Relevance and Novelty: Is the study original, impactful, and relevant to digital health or medical sciences?

Literature Review: Adequacy, currency, and relevance of references

Digital Components: In studies involving AI, machine learning, IoT, health informatics, decision-support systems, or telemedicine, are algorithms, datasets, and technologies clearly described?

Clarity and Organization: Language quality, structure, flow, and coherence

Tables/Figures: Accuracy, placement, ethical and technical suitability

Plagiarism or Ethical Concerns: Any signals of misconduct, inappropriate self-citations, or duplicated publication

Conflict of Interest Indications: Any undeclared biases or questionable relationships

Overall Contribution: Scientific, clinical, or technological impact

Reviewers may select from the following options: Yes, No, or Needs Revision for each evaluation item.

After completing the evaluation form, reviewers must provide a recommendation among the following:

Reviewers must justify each recommendation with specific comments, particularly for items marked “No” or “Needs Revision.”

If a major Revision is recommended, reviewers may request to reassess the manuscript after the Revision. An additional 15 days will be granted for re-evaluation.

At least two independent reviewers evaluate each manuscript.

If one report is positive and the other is negative, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer.

A single negative review is sufficient for rejection.

For acceptance, at least two upbeat or conditionally positive (minor/major Revision) reports are required.

If one reviewer requests “Major Revision” and another “Minor Revision” or “Accept,” the manuscript is returned to the reviewer requesting major Revision for a second assessment.

For manuscripts involving:

Clinical research

Biomedical datasets

Statistical analyses

Digital health records

Machine learning algorithms

Diagnostic images

Reviewers may request access to anonymized data through the editor. The editorial office will coordinate with the authors to ensure the ethical and confidential sharing of data.

Reviewers must not:

Use data, ideas, or findings from the manuscript for personal benefit

Contact authors directly

Delay the review intentionally

Demand citation of their own work unless scientifically justified

Share any review content with third parties

Reproduce or distribute manuscript content

The journal strictly protects reviewer identities.