Fundamental Principles

At the Düzce University Journal of Social Sciences, the manuscript evaluation process is conducted in accordance with the double-blind peer review principle. The names of reviewers are not disclosed during or after the publication process.
The author and the reviewer of a manuscript may not be selected from the same institution.

While authors do not know the identity of their reviewers, reviewers likewise do not know the identity of the author(s) of the manuscripts they evaluate.

Editors guarantee that the publication process is completed independently and impartially by taking into account potential conflicts of interest among authors, reviewers, and other editors.

Reviewer Guidelines
Considering that the Düzce University Journal of Social Sciences aims to publish original manuscripts that contribute to the field, we kindly ask reviewers to assist us in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

Below, information is provided on the manuscript evaluation process, how to become a reviewer, and recommendations on how to write a good review. In addition, our reviewer terms and conditions—based on COPE Principles, which provide further guidance on objective and constructive peer review—are presented.
The Düzce University Journal of Social Sciences adopts a double-blind peer review model.

Selection of Reviewers
Reviewers are selected from among experts who hold a doctoral degree and have publications in the relevant field of the manuscript. Information on experts working at Turkish universities is accessed via the YÖK Academic website, while information on international experts is obtained through Publons.

Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Objectivity:
Reviews must be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any potential personal biases and take them into account when evaluating a manuscript. Reviewers must clearly express evaluations that support their decisions.

Contribution to Editorial Decision:
Reviewer evaluations assist the editor in making editorial decisions and provide authors with an opportunity to improve their manuscripts. Therefore, reviewers who feel unqualified to review a manuscript or who believe they cannot complete the review within the required time should not accept the invitation to review.

Confidentiality:
All manuscripts submitted to the journal for review must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share their evaluations or information about the manuscript with anyone or communicate directly with the authors. Information contained in the manuscript may not be used by a reviewer in their own research without the explicit written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

Sensitivity to Research and Publication Ethics Violations:
Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical issues in the manuscript and report them to the editor.

Conflict of Interest:
Reviewers should not accept to review manuscripts in which they have potential conflicts of interest arising from relationships with the authors or the institutions to which the manuscripts are affiliated.

Requests for Citation to the Reviewer:
If a reviewer suggests that an author include citations to the reviewer’s own work (or that of their collaborators), this should be based solely on genuine scholarly reasons and not for the purpose of increasing citation counts or enhancing the visibility of the reviewer’s work. See also: Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers.

Conducting the Review

Reviewer evaluations must be objective. During the review process, reviewers are expected to consider the following points:

Does the manuscript contain new and important information?

Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the manuscript?

Is the methodology described in a coherent and understandable manner?

Are the interpretations and conclusions supported by the findings?

Are sufficient references made to other studies in the field?

Is the language quality adequate?

Do the abstract/keywords accurately reflect the content of the manuscript?

Steps for Reviewing a Manuscript

To evaluate a manuscript sent through the system, reviewers should follow the steps below:

Log in using your username and password.

Select the Düzce University Journal of Social Sciences from the top menu.

Click on the “Manuscripts in Process” button on the left-hand side.

On the page that opens, you will see the title and status of the manuscript you are requested to review. Click on the manuscript title.

On the newly opened page, you will be asked whether you accept to review the manuscript. To accept, click the “I Would Like to Review” button in the green section.

After accepting the review, click on “Review Version” in the dialogue section to download the manuscript file and evaluate it using the Reviewer Evaluation Form.

After completing the entire form, click the “Save and Finish” button.

If you have an additional file containing corrections or annotations, you may upload it to the system via the “Add File – Upload” section.

Editor Guidelines
Selection of Editors
Editors are selected from among experts in their fields in accordance with the journal’s scope of publication.
Duties and Responsibilities of Editors
Coordinating the Peer Review Process

Editors must ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial, and timely. Research articles must be reviewed by at least two external reviewers, and editors should seek additional opinions when necessary.

Selection of Reviewers
Editors select reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field, taking into account the need for suitable, inclusive, and diverse representation. Editors follow best practices to avoid the selection of fraudulent reviewers.

Maintaining Confidentiality
Unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and reviewers, editors must protect the confidentiality of all materials submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers. In exceptional cases and in consultation with the publisher, editors may share limited information with editors of other journals when deemed necessary to investigate suspected research misconduct. Editors must protect the identities of reviewers. Information contained in a submitted manuscript may not be used in the editor’s own research without the explicit written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through the peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal benefit.

Impartiality
Editors must evaluate manuscripts solely on their intellectual content, without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).

Investigation of Allegations
An editor who finds convincing evidence of ethical misconduct should contact the Editorial Board and the Publisher to ensure that appropriate actions—such as correction, retraction, or other amendments—are taken.

Conflict of Interest
Editors must not be involved in decisions regarding manuscripts authored by themselves or their family members. Such submissions must be subject to all of the journal’s usual procedures. Editors must implement COPE guidelines regarding the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.

Publication Decision
Editors are responsible for deciding which manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published, based on the reviewer reports. Editors must comply with the policies determined by the Editorial Board.

Requests for Citation to the Journal
Editors must not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing any journal metrics. Editors should not request citations to their own journal or to another journal for reasons other than genuine scholarly relevance.

Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern
Editors may consider publishing a correction if minor errors that do not affect the findings, interpretations, or conclusions are identified in a published article. Editors should consider retracting an article in cases of major errors or violations that invalidate the findings or conclusions. If there is evidence that the findings are unreliable due to research or publication misconduct, and the authors’ institutions have not investigated the matter or such an investigation appears unjustified or inconclusive, editors should consider publishing an expression of concern. COPE guidelines are taken into account regarding corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern.