Evaluation Principles
1) Manuscripts that have not been previously published or are not currently under review for publication in another journal and approved by each author are accepted for evaluation.
2) Submitted and pre-checked articles are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate (or others) software.
3) Duzce Divinity Journal conducts a double blind review process. All manuscripts will first be evaluated by the editor for suitability to the journal. Articles deemed appropriate are sent to at least two independent expert referees to evaluate the scientific quality of the article.
4) The Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts independently of the ethnic origin, gender, nationality, religious beliefs and political philosophy of the authors. He/she ensures that the manuscripts submitted for publication undergo a fair double blind peer review.
5) The editor-in-chief does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors and referees.
6) The editor is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. The editor's decision is final.
7) Editors are not involved in decisions about manuscripts written by themselves or by family members or colleagues, or that relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Any such submission is subject to all of the journal's usual procedures.
8) Editorials and analysis articles written by the editors of the Duzce Divinity Journalare not subject to external peer review. Original research articles are sent to at least two external reviewers as blind reviewers. During this period, the roles of those editors are suspended.
9) Reviewers should ensure that all information about submitted manuscripts remains confidential until the manuscript is published and should report to the editor if they notice any copyright infringement or plagiarism on the part of the author.
10) If the referee does not feel qualified in the subject matter of the manuscript or is unlikely to be able to provide a timely response, he/she should inform the editor and ask him/her not to involve himself/herself in the refereeing process.
11) During the review process, the editor makes it clear to the reviewers that the manuscripts submitted for review are the exclusive property of the authors and that this is a privileged communication.
12) Referees and editorial board members cannot discuss articles with other persons.
13) Care must be taken to protect the anonymity of the referees.
14) While the manuscript is in the refereeing process, the editorial roles of the owner editors are suspended so that they do not see the refereeing process, thus preserving double blind refereeing.

Evaluation Process

1. Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Check
The manuscript is reviewed by the editor for compliance with the journal's publication principles, academic writing rules and ISNAD Citation System, and is scanned for plagiarism using the iThenticate programme. The preliminary review is completed within a maximum of 15 days. The plagiarism similarity rate must be less than 20%. If the similarity rate is 1%, but citation and quotation are not done properly, plagiarism may still be in question. In this respect, citation and quotation rules must be known and carefully applied by the author:

Citation/Indirect Quotation: If a citation is made to an opinion, discussion or determination in a source and the cited opinion is put on the line with the citing researcher's own words, a footnote mark (1) should be placed at the end of the sentence. If the reference is to a certain page or page range of the work, the page number should be given. If there is a reference to the entire work, that is, if the reference is made to a degree that requires the reader to examine the entire work, the source should be indicated in the footnote after the phrase "bk. on this subject", "bk. about this opinion", "bk. about this discussion" or just "bk.".

Quotation/Iquotation: If the relevant part of the source is taken exactly as it is, without touching the point and comma, the quoted part is "given in double quotation marks" and the source is indicated by giving the footnote number1 at the end. Quotations that exist in the directly quoted text are written using 'single quotation marks'. If the directly quoted part is longer than three lines (more than forty words), it is shown in a separate paragraph. In order to distinguish long quotations from the main text, it should be preferred to write in a font size one smaller than the normal text size and to indent the entire paragraph from the left at the beginning of the line. In direct quotations, some words, sentences and paragraphs may be omitted, provided that they do not change the meaning. Ellipses (...) are placed in place of the omitted parts. It is not correct to write the part quoted verbatim from a source without enclosing it in "double quotation marks" and to be contented with just writing the source at the end. If these rules are not followed, the author may be accused of violation of publication ethics (Plagiarism) (see ISNAD Citation System)

2. Field Editor Review
The manuscript that passes the Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Scanning stage is examined by the relevant field editor in terms of problematic and academic language and style. This review is completed in maximum 15 days.

3. Referee Process (Academic Evaluation)
After being reviewed by the field editor, the manuscript is submitted to the evaluation of at least two external referees who have a doctoral thesis, book or article on the subject. The referee process is carried out in confidentiality within the framework of double blind refereeing. The referee is requested to state his/her opinion and opinion on the manuscript either on the text or justify it with an explanation of at least 150 words on the online referee form. If the author disagrees with the referee's opinion, he/she is given the right to object and defend his/her views. The field editor ensures mutual communication between the author and the referee while maintaining confidentiality. If both referee reports are favourable, the manuscript is submitted to the Editorial Board with a proposal for publication. If one of the two referees has a negative opinion, the manuscript is sent to a third referee. Studies can be published with the positive decision of at least two referees. The publication of book and symposium reviews and doctoral thesis abstracts is decided upon the evaluation of at least two internal referees (relevant field editors and/or members of the editorial board).

Refereeing Type: Double Blind
Double Blinding: After the plagiarism check, eligible manuscripts are evaluated by the editor-in-chief in terms of originality, methodology, importance of the topic covered and compatibility with the scope of the journal. The editor ensures that the manuscripts undergo double-blind refereeing in a fair manner and, if the manuscript meets the formal requirements, submits the manuscript to the evaluation of at least two referees from Turkey and / or abroad, and if the referees deem necessary, they approve the publication of the manuscript after the desired changes are made by the authors.
Review Time Pre-Publication
Author-Referee Interactions: Editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors.
Time in Review: The time taken until the first decision is approximately 15 days for research articles that are taken to the referee process for review in Düzce Journal of Theology.
Number of Referees Reviewing Each Article: Two-three
Permitted Duration: 20 days. This period can be extended by adding 10 days.
Decision: In order for the article to be accepted for publication by the Editor, at least two referees must make an acceptance decision.
Suspicion of Ethical Violation: Referees should inform the Editor if they suspect misconduct in the research or publication. The Editor is responsible for taking the necessary actions in accordance with COPE recommendations.

4. Proofreading Phase
If the referees request corrections to be made in the text they have reviewed, the relevant reports are sent to the author and the author is asked to correct his/her work. The author makes the corrections in the Word program with the "Track Changes" feature turned on or indicates the changes in the text in red. The author submits the corrected text to the field editor.

5. Field Editor Control
The field editor checks whether the author has made the requested corrections to the text.

6. Referee Check
The reviewer checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.

7. Expansion of the Abstract
Authors of manuscripts that are deemed "publishable" by both referees are asked to expand the abstract/abstract section of the manuscript to 350-400 words.

8. Turkish Language Control
The manuscripts that pass through the referee process are reviewed by the Turkish Language Editor and the Editor-in-Chief, and if necessary, the author is asked to proofread the manuscript. The review process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

9. English Language Check
The manuscripts that pass the Turkish language control are examined by the English Language Editor and, if necessary, corrections are requested from the author. The English language editor's control process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

10. Editorial Board Review
Technical, academic and linguistic articles are examined by the Editorial Board and it is decided whether they will be published or not, and if so, in which issue they will be included. The Board decides by majority vote. In case of equality, the final decision is made in favour of the editor's decision.

11. Typesetting and Layout Phase
The manuscripts decided to be published by the Editorial Board are prepared for publication by typesetting and layout and sent to the author for review. This stage takes a maximum of 15 days.

12. Data Submission to National and International Indexes
The data of the published issue is sent to the relevant indexes within 15 days.