The article evaluation process in Duzce Divinity Journal is carried out within the framework of the principle of double blind refereeing. The names of the referees are published in a single list only at the end of the publication period.

The author and the referee cannot be selected from the same institution.

The author does not know who the referees are, and the referees do not know who the article belongs to. 

The editors guarantee that the publication process of manuscripts is completed in an independent and impartial manner, taking into account the conflicts of interest between the author(s), referees and other editors.

Referee Guidelines
Considering that Duzce Divinity Journal aims to publish original and important articles, we ask referees to help us evaluate the article submissions we receive.
Below are some tips on the article review process, how to become a reviewer, and how to write a good review. Also included are our terms and conditions for reviewing based on the COPE Principles, which provide more information on how to conduct an objective and constructive review.
 Duzce Divinity Journal has adopted a double blind reviewing model.

Selection of Reviewers
The referees are selected among experts who have a PhD degree in the field of science to which the article relates and who have publications. The information of the experts from Turkish universities can be accessed from YÖK Academic website and the information of the experts from abroad can be accessed from Publons.

Duties and Responsibilities of Referees
1) Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias and take this into account when reviewing an article. The reviewer should clearly express his/her judgements in support of his/her decision.
2) Contribution to Editorial Decision: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and provides the author with the opportunity to improve the manuscript. In this respect, a referee who feels inadequate in reviewing an article or who thinks that he/she cannot complete the review in a short time should not accept the referee invitation.
3) Confidentiality: All manuscripts received by the journal for review must be kept confidential. Reviewers should not share reviews or information about the manuscript with anyone or communicate directly with the authors. Information contained in the manuscript should not be used by a reviewer in his/her own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal gain.
4) Sensitivity to the Ethical Conduct of Research and Publication: Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical issues in the manuscript and report them to the editor.
5) Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript with potential conflicts of interest arising from their relationship with the authors or the organisations with which the manuscript is affiliated.
6) Referee Citation Request: If a referee suggests that an author include citations to the referee's (or their collaborators') work, this should be for genuine scientific reasons and not for the purpose of increasing the referee's citation count or the visibility of their work. See also Code of Ethics for Referees

Making a Review
Referees' evaluations should be objective. During the refereeing process, referees are expected to make their evaluations by considering the following points.
- Does the article contain new and important information?
- Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?
- Is the methodology described in a coherent and understandable manner?
- Are the interpretations and conclusions substantiated by the findings?
- Are adequate references given to other studies in the field?
- Is the language quality adequate?
- Does the abstract/abstract/keywords/keywords accurately reflect the content of the article?

The referee follows the steps below to evaluate an article submitted from the system.

1. Log in with your username and password.
2. Select Duzce Divinity Journal in the top menu.
3. Click on the "Articles in Process" button on the left side.
4. On the page that opens, you will see the name and status of the article you are asked to evaluate. Click on the article name.
5. On the new page that opens, you are asked whether you agree to evaluate the article. To accept, you must click on the "I want to evaluate" button in the green section.
6. After accepting the evaluation, you can download the article file by clicking on the "Evaluation Version" title in the dialogue section and evaluate the article through the "Referee Evaluation Form".
7. After completing the entire form, you must click the "Save and Finish" button.
8. If there is an additional file on which you have made corrections, you can upload it to the system from the "Add file - Submit" section.

Editor's Guide
Selection of Editors
Editors are selected among experts in their fields in accordance with the scope of the journal.

Duties and Responsibilities of Editors
Coordinating the Referee Process
The editor should ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial and timely. Research articles should be reviewed by at least two external reviewers, and the editor should seek additional feedback when necessary.
Identification of Reviewers
The Editor will select reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field, taking into account the need for appropriate, inclusive and diverse representation. The Editor will follow best practices to avoid the selection of fraudulent reviewers.
Protecting Confidentiality
The editor must maintain the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers, unless otherwise agreed with the authors and reviewers concerned. In exceptional circumstances and in consultation with the publisher, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals where the editor deems it necessary to investigate suspected research misconduct. The editor must protect the identity of reviewers. Information contained in a submitted manuscript should not be used in the editor's own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained during the refereeing process should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal gain.
Impartiality
The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors.
Investigation of Allegations
An editor who finds convincing evidence of ethical violations should contact the Editorial Board and the Publisher to have the manuscript corrected, retracted, or otherwise amended.

Conflict of Interest
The editor should not be involved in decisions on manuscripts written by him/herself or by family members. Furthermore, such a paper should be subject to all the usual procedures of the journal. The editor should follow the COPE guidelines on disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.
Publication Decision
The editor is responsible for analysing the referee reports and deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. The editor must comply with the policies determined by the Editorial Board.
Request for Citation to the Journal
The editor should not attempt to influence the ranking of the journal by artificially increasing any journal metric. The editor will not request citation of articles from his/her journal or any other journal, except for scientific reasons.
Correction, Retraction, and Publication of an Expression of Concern
Editors may consider publishing a correction if minor errors are detected in the published article that do not affect the findings, interpretations and conclusions. Editors should consider retracting the manuscript if there are major errors/violations that invalidate the findings and conclusions. Editors should consider issuing a statement of concern if there is evidence that the findings are unreliable and that the authors' institutions have not investigated the incident, or if the possible investigation seems unfair or inconclusive, if there is a possibility of research or publication misconduct by the authors. COPE guidelines are taken into account regarding correction, retraction or expression of concern.