All submissions made to Duzce Medical Journal are peer-reviewed prior to acceptance for publication. The editorial board assesses the suitability of each manuscript firstly to ensure its suitability with respect to the scopes and aims of the journal. Content, being up-to-date, contribution to the literature, method, conformity with the journal, the existence of studies on similar subjects, the density of articles of the same type, etc. are also evaluated. As a result of this evaluation, the manuscript can be returned directly to the authors without being taken into any review process. The manuscript is then critically reviewed externally by a minimum of two academic reviewers. During the peer-review process, the editorial board reserves the right to reject the manuscript or to request revisions from the authors for additional changes prior to manuscript acceptance.

For research articles or case reports, reviewers will generally be asked to comment on the following aspects of the submitted manuscripts:

• Significance of the study to the field and its novelty.
• Quality of data presented and controls/statistical analyses used.
• Compliance with ethics guidelines and regulations, where applicable.
• Whether the conclusions are justified/supported by the data presented.
• How clearly the study is reported.
• Novelty of the research.

The final decision to accept or decline a manuscript for publication is made by the editor(s) following consultation with the reviewers and the editorial board. For any manuscripts that do not meet the standards of Duzce Medical Journal, as outlined in editorial policies, or that contain major scientific shortcomings, the reviewers will, to the best of their ability and wherever possible, advise the authors on how to further improve their study for publication.

The authors may be invited for revision if a manuscript receives favorable comments from the reviewers but cannot be accepted immediately after the initial review. In such cases, the authors are expected to fully address the concerns and criticisms raised by the reviewers and/or the editor(s). Manuscripts that are resubmitted after undergoing major revisions will be sent back for peer review. If the authors are not invited for resubmission by the editor, the manuscript will not be reconsidered at Duzce Medical Journal.

The peer-review process continues until the decision on the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript. The editors may decide whether to publish the manuscript or not, taking into account all the submitted revisions.

Accepted manuscripts move to the production process. At this stage, the editorial board may make changes and/or corrections in the form and content or request a correction from the author in this regard. Editorial board is fully authorized in all related topics as abstract, spelling corrections, text placement, table formatting, reference writing, etc. Once the redaction and layout process have completed, a control copy is sent to the author for final control and approval.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers perform work for the Duzce Medical Journal on a volunteer basis. Reviewers are free to decline invitations to review particular manuscripts at their discretion, for example, if their current employment workload and/or other commitments make it prohibitive for them to complete a review in a timely fashion and to do justice to the task in the available timeframe. They should also not accept manuscript review assignments for which they feel unqualified.

Reviewers who have accepted manuscript assignments are normally expected to submit their reviews within three weeks. They should recuse themselves from the assignment if it becomes apparent to them at any stage that they do not possess the required expertise to perform the review, or that they may have a potential conflict of interest in performing the review (e.g., one resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, institutions, or companies associated with the manuscript). If any competing interest is identified regarding a particular study, the reviewers are asked to notify the editorial board and should decline to review the article if appropriate.

The peer-review process is double-blinded. Reviewers are asked to objectively evaluate the merits of the reported research whilst respecting the authors’ own intellectual independence and refraining from engaging in personal criticism of the author(s). Personal criticism is not appropriate under any circumstances. The reviewers must explain and provide evidence that supports their evaluation so that the authors can understand the reasoning behind the comments made. They are encouraged to express their views clearly, explaining and justifying all recommendations made. They should always attempt to provide detailed and constructive feedback to assist the author(s) in improving their work, even if the manuscript is, in their opinion, not publishable.

Duzce Medical Journal follows COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers). All manuscripts under review must be treated in strict confidence. Privileged information or ideas obtained by reviewers through the peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents, and must not be shown to or discussed with anyone, except in exceptional circumstances where additional expert advice is required from a specific individual. Where this is the case, the reviewer must disclose to the editor the identities of the individuals that have been consulted. Any unpublished information, argumentation, or interpretation found in the manuscript under review must not be disclosed unless consent from the authors is obtained.

Reviewers should identify in their reviews also any relevant previously published studies that have not been cited, together with any instances in which proper attribution of sources has not been provided. When commenting on any observations, deductions, or arguments that have been previously reported, the reviewer should provide the relevant citation.

If any substantial similarities are identified between the manuscript and any published article or any manuscript under consideration by another journal, as well as any concerns might have in relation to the ethical acceptability of the research reported in the manuscript, these should be brought to the editor’s attention.