1. Introduction and Basic Commitment
Launched in 2005, the Düzce University Faculty of Forestry Forestry Journal (DÜOD) continues to produce high-quality academic publications in the field of forestry in line with international standards. Our journal, which is indexed in TR Dizin, MIAR, and Erih Plus, adheres to the principles of transparency, fairness, and academic integrity at every stage of the publication process.
DÜOD commits to complying with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) criteria regarding the responsibilities of the editorial team, editorial board, reviewers, and authors during the evaluation process. This guide has been prepared using COPE’s “Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers” document and aims to explain the ethical and professional standards expected of reviewers.

2. Editorial Review and Peer Review Process
Articles submitted to DÜOD are subject to a double-blind peer review process. The process consists of the following stages:
1. Preliminary Review: Articles are first evaluated by the editor for compliance with writing rules, plagiarism rate (checked using tools such as İntihal.net, Turnitin, etc.), and publication policies. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are returned to the author with constructive feedback and justification.
2. Assignment of a Field Editor: If the editor believes the manuscript has potential, a Field Editor is assigned to manage the process.
3. Referee Selection and Invitation: The Field Editor identifies potential referees based on the manuscript’s area of expertise. Invitations are sent to at least two reviewers from different institutions with no conflict of interest.
4. Double-Blind Review: Reviewers receive files with the author’s identity, document details, and personal information concealed. Reviewers are also expected to avoid including personal information about themselves in the files they upload.
5. Final Decision: Based on the referee evaluations and the Field Editor’s recommendation, a final decision (acceptance, revision, or rejection) is made regarding the article. All decisions are communicated to the author with their justifications. If the referee reports are found to be insufficient or unfair, the Editor may appoint additional referees.

3. Basic Principles and Responsibilities for Reviewers

A. Before Accepting a Review Invitation
• Expertise and Objectivity: Accept the invitation only if you have sufficient expertise in the scope and methodology of the article and can provide an unbiased evaluation.
• Conflict of Interest: Immediately disclose to the editor any personal, financial, intellectual, or professional conflicts of interest (e.g., working at the same institution, close collaboration, etc.) that could prevent you from evaluating the article. As a rule, reviewers should not be from the same institution as the authors. If you suspect the identity of the authors, contact the editor.
• Timely Response and Commitment: Respond to invitations within a reasonable time. If you accept the review, commit to submitting your report within the specified time frame. If you are unable to review, communicate your decision to decline as soon as possible.

B. During the Review Process
• Confidentiality: The review process is confidential. Do not share, use, or reproduce the content of the article with third parties without the authors’ permission during or after the review process.
• Use of Artificial Intelligence: The main elements of the review process (content, methodology, evaluation of academic contribution) are yours and cannot be transferred to artificial intelligence tools. Reviewers play a vital role in scientific evaluation. Reviewers guide editors with their opinions and suggestions in their field of expertise, ensuring that published articles are scientifically valid and reliable. Editors select reviewers because they have in-depth knowledge of the relevant research topic or method. Reviewers are responsible for the accuracy of the opinions they express in their reports. Despite promising developments in information technology, generative AI tools have significant flaws. These tools may lack up-to-date knowledge on the research topic and may provide meaningless, biased, or completely incorrect information. On the other hand, article texts may contain sensitive, proprietary, or confidential information. Such information should not be shared outside the peer review process. Despite the journal’s policy, if reviewers have used AI tools in any way in their report, they must clearly state this. On the other hand, since some AI tools are known to store uploaded content, this would also violate the principle of non-disclosure to third parties.
• Seeking Assistance: If you deem it appropriate to involve another researcher in the evaluation, you must first obtain explicit written permission from the journal and disclose the names of the contributors. Alternatively, you can submit the relevant researchers to the editorial board as referee suggestions.

C. Preparing the Reviewer Report
• Be Constructive, Objective, and Detailed: Your report should be written in an objective, professional, and constructive manner. Avoid general statements such as “successful/unsuccessful.” Support your criticisms with concrete arguments, quotations, and page/line numbers.
• Detailed Commentary and Justification: Explain your recommendation for acceptance, revision, or rejection in detail, using academic reasoning. Notes and suggested corrections on the text are extremely valuable to authors; upload such a file to the system.
• Citation Ethics: Do not request that your own work be added to the bibliography solely to increase your citation count without a valid academic reason. Your citation suggestions should be based on valid academic reasons and should avoid statements that could lead the author to guess your identity.
• Maintain Anonymity: Do not use any expressions in your review form or comments on the text that could reveal your identity.

D. Post-Review
• Review of Revisions: If possible, agree to review a revised version of an article you have previously reviewed.
• Continuous Confidentiality: Keep the details of the article confidential even after the review process is complete.
• Openness to Communication: Respond quickly and openly to any questions the editorial board may have regarding your review.


We thank you for your valuable contribution and effort to our journal. We appreciate your key role in the advancement of scientific knowledge.

This guide has been compiled from the document “COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers” published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). For details, see the source: COPE Council. COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9