Blind Peer Review is a method used to ensure the highest quality in scientific publications. It lies at the heart of good scientific publishing and is conducted by all reputable journals. Our reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the high standards of our journal, and all submitted manuscripts undergo the blind peer review process outlined below.

PRELIMINARY REVIEW
Submitted manuscripts undergo a preliminary review by the journal’s editorial office. At this stage, the manuscripts are checked for compliance with the journal’s formatting guidelines and the presence of author details. Additionally, the suitability of the manuscript for the journal’s scope and the completeness of the required documents and forms during the submission process are assessed. Manuscripts that pass the preliminary review are forwarded to the editor. However, if any deficiencies are identified at this stage, the manuscript is returned to the author for completion and revision. The editorial office reviews the corrections made, and if deemed appropriate, assigns an editor to the manuscript.

EDITORIAL REVIEW
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding whether a submitted manuscript should proceed to the peer review process or be rejected without review. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they lack sufficient originality, contain significant conceptual and/or methodological flaws, are written in inadequate or poor English/Turkish, or fall outside the journal’s scope and objectives. Authors of rejected manuscripts are informed of the decision along with the reasons for rejection. Manuscripts deemed suitable for the review process are sent to two expert reviewers. If one reviewer rejects the manuscript while the other requests major or minor revisions, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer. However, if one reviewer rejects the manuscript and the other requests major revisions, the editor reserves the right to reject the manuscript. A minimum of two positive reviewer reports is required for publication.

PEER REVIEW PROCESS
The "Blind Peer Review" process directly impacts publication quality by ensuring an objective and independent evaluation. The Düzce University Journal of Social Sciences follows a double-blind peer review process. Reviewers cannot communicate directly with authors; their feedback and evaluations are conveyed through the journal’s management system. Reviewer comments on evaluation forms and full texts are shared with the authors through the editor.

Reviewers evaluating submissions for the Düzce University Journal of Social Sciences are expected to adhere to the following ethical responsibilities:

Accept only manuscripts relevant to their expertise for review.
Conduct reviews impartially and confidentially.
If they encounter a conflict of interest during the review process, they should decline the review and inform the journal editor.
In accordance with confidentiality principles, destroy the manuscripts they have reviewed after the evaluation process. They may only use the final published version of the manuscript.
Base their evaluation solely on the content of the work, without being influenced by nationality, gender, religious beliefs, political views, or commercial concerns.
Provide constructive and respectful feedback. They should not make hostile, defamatory, or offensive personal remarks.
Complete the review process within the agreed timeframe while adhering to the ethical responsibilities outlined above.
In addition to the above explanations, reviewer comments and evaluations are checked by the editor to ensure that no expressions, writings, or indicators revealing the reviewer’s identity are included. If any such elements are found, they are removed before the feedback is shared with the author in accordance with the blind peer review system. Reviewers who do not respond to the review invitation within one month are removed from the process, and a new reviewer is assigned. However, to expedite the process, reminder emails are sent to reviewers every ten days. If a reviewer requests major revisions, they are required to re-evaluate the manuscript after the author’s revisions. The editor ensures that the same reviewer reassesses the revised manuscript. If, after the second round of review, the reviewer recommends minor revisions or acceptance, the manuscript is returned to the author without further peer review for final corrections.

RELATIONSHIP WITH REVIEWERS
Editors have the following duties and responsibilities toward reviewers:

Assign reviewers relevant to the manuscript’s subject.
Provide necessary information and guidance to reviewers during the evaluation process.
Ensure that there are no conflicts of interest between authors and reviewers.
Maintain the confidentiality of reviewers’ identities within the blind peer review framework.
Encourage reviewers to evaluate manuscripts impartially, scientifically, and objectively.
Implement policies and practices to enhance reviewer performance.
Take necessary steps to update and maintain a dynamic pool of reviewers.
Prevent disrespectful and unscientific reviews.
Ensure diversity in the reviewer pool.
FINAL REVIEW
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on all manuscripts that receive positive peer review reports and are ready for publication. The editor’s decision, along with the reviewers’ recommendations, is communicated to the author(s). Accepted manuscripts undergo a final review by the copy editor to check for typographical errors, inconsistencies with the journal’s formatting guidelines, citation formatting, in-text citation styles, and punctuation usage. At this stage, author details are also added to the manuscript. The final layout is then prepared, and the article is scheduled for publication in the upcoming issue.