At Düzce Mathematical Research (DMR), we uphold the highest standards of scholarly integrity and rigor in mathematical research. Our peer-review process is pivotal in maintaining these standards, and we deeply value the expertise and dedication of our reviewers. This guide outlines the responsibilities and expectations for reviewers to ensure a fair, thorough, and constructive evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

1. Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not disclose any information about the manuscript to others without the Editor-in-Chief's permission. If a reviewer recognizes a conflict of interest, such as a personal or professional relationship with the authors, they should promptly inform the editorial office and recuse themselves from the review process.

2. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

• Originality and Contribution: Does the manuscript present novel findings or methodologies that contribute significantly to the field of mathematics?
• Technical Soundness: Are the mathematical arguments and proofs correct and logically sound?
• Clarity and Organization: Is the manuscript well-written, with clear definitions, theorems, and proofs? Are the results presented in a logical sequence?
• Relevance and Scope: Does the manuscript align with the aims and scope of DMR?
• References and Context: Are the references current and relevant? Does the manuscript adequately situate its contributions within the existing literature?

3. Review Process

• Timeliness: Reviewers should aim to complete their evaluations within four weeks of accepting the review invitation. If more time is needed, please communicate with the editorial office promptly.
• Review Report: Provide a detailed and constructive report, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Specific comments on sections, equations, or arguments are highly valuable. If recommending revisions, clearly distinguish between major and minor issues.
• Recommendation: Choose one of the following recommendations: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Provide a rationale for your decision to assist the editors in making an informed judgment.

4. Anonymity
DMR employs a double-blind review process. Reviewers should ensure that their comments do not reveal their identity. Avoid self-references that could disclose your identity and refrain from suggesting citations to your own work unless it is essential and relevant.

5. Ethical Compliance
Reviewers should be vigilant for any signs of plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical research practices. If any such concerns arise, please report them to the editorial office immediately.

6. Acknowledgment
We recognize the invaluable contribution of our reviewers to the academic community. While DMR does not offer financial compensation, we acknowledge reviewers' efforts through annual recognition on our website and consideration for editorial board positions.

For any questions or further information, please contact dmrdergi@duzce.edu.tr.

Thank you for your commitment to advancing mathematical research through your critical and thoughtful reviews.