Original Research: Prospective, retrospective, and all kinds of experimental studies conducted in clinics can be published.

• If referencing another source within a publication and the referenced source is inaccessible, only the publication that is being cited should be shown as the source, and the primary source should be mentioned by name:

• In figures and tables taken from another source, the source should be cited in accordance with the referencing method used in the text: After the figure or table description, the authors' names (literature number), the word ‘from’," and the statement "retrieved from’ are added in sentence form or only the literature number of the relevant source is provided. The descriptions of these figures and tables should include an explanation that permission was obtained from the authors for their use.

PUBLICATION POLICY
In order to provide a national and international platform for the exchange of research findings, practice, experience, and knowledge on nephrology nursing and general nursing; In the Journal of Nephrology Nursing; Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation nursing and articles that include clinical and experimental research, case reports, literature reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies, letters to the editor, editorial comments and discussions on current issues that determine the nursing agenda are published. It is published online three times a year. The written language of the journal is Turkish and English. The evaluation process is carried out using the double-blind method. Each article accepted for publication will be scanned with plagiarism software to determine the plagiarism and similarity rate by the editorial board. Each article accepted for publication is given a DOI number.
Journal of Nephrology Nursing is open access and free journal (Creative Commons License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.tr). Magazine; In the articles it publishes, it seeks to comply with research and publication ethics, to comply with ethical rules and scientific standards related to the subject, and not to have commercial concerns. Journal of Nephrology Nursing, International Medical Journal Editorial Board (ICMJE) (http://www.icmje.org/), World Medical Editors Association (WAME) (https://www.wame.org/policies) principles and Publication Ethics Committee (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/) “Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors” and “Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers”.

PUBLICATION EVALUATION PROCESS
The publication evaluation process consists of three stages.

1. Peer Review
2. Double Anonymous Peer Review
3. Editorial Review

Depending on the number of repetitions of the referee processes of the study and the time it takes for the authors to complete their correction suggestions, it may take approximately 2-6 months for the articles to be accepted or rejected and notified to the authors.

1. Peer Review
In the first evaluation process, regardless of the scientific content of the article, it is examined whether it has been prepared in accordance with the spelling rules. Articles that are not prepared in accordance with the spelling rules and/or have incomplete application files are not included in the scientific evaluation process. The submitted articles are first evaluated by the editor for their content, currency, contribution to the literature, method, suitability for the journal, existence of studies on similar subjects, the density of the articles of the same type, etc. examined from all aspects. As a result of this review, the article can be returned directly to the authors without any evaluation process. Authors are required to upload the similarity report obtained from plagiarism software (iThenticate, Turnitin, Anti-Plagiarism, DupliChecker, etc.) to the system at the application stage. If the similarity rate is 25% or more, the editor reserves the right to reject the article and/or request corrections from the authors.

2. Double Anonymous Peer Review
After the approval of the editor, the article is sent to at least two independent and expert peer reviewers for evaluation in a double-blind manner. In this system, the authors do not know who is the review who will evaluate their work, and the referees do not know whose work they are evaluating. Peer reviewers can accept or reject the evaluation invitation. The evaluation period of the peer reviewers who accept the invitation is a maximum of 21 days. If the peer reviewers do not accept the evaluation or do not send the evaluation report after 21 days, the article is sent to a new referee for evaluation. The peer reviewers evaluate the article in terms of scientific relevance, purpose, method, findings, discussion, and conclusion. The work can be accepted directly, requested to be revised, or rejected. In cases where editing is requested, the suggestions from the referees are notified to the authors and the authors are asked to revise their work. The author(s) for which editing is requested in the texts of the evaluation result, within 14 days, should paint a single Microsoft Word document for which the necessary editing has been made, by painting it with red for the first peer reviewer, yellow for the second peer reviewer, green for the third peer reviewer, including the regulations of all peer reviewers, and by writing a description on the side. Responsible for uploading to the system. During the upload of the text edited as a result of the peer review evaluations to the system, a note called "Informing the Editors and Peer Reviewers ", which contains detailed information about the regulations, should also be uploaded to the system.

AUTHORS SHOULD NEVER WRITE ANY INFORMATION THAT REVEALED THEIR NAME OR IDENTITY IN THE REVISED ARTICLE FILE OR RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW SECTION.

If the peer reviewers want to see the article again after correction, the article is sent to the peer reviewers for evaluation. The correction results from the authors are reviewed by the peer reviewers and the editor is informed about the decision. This process continues until the peer reviewer gives their opinion on the acceptance or rejection of the article. The article that receives two positive peer review reports from the field evaluation is entitled to be published. The article, which receives a positive and negative peer reviews report, is sent to a third peer reviewer and whether the article is published or not is determined in accordance with the report of the third peer reviewer and/or the editor's decision.

3. Editorial Review
The editor may decide to publish or not publish the article, taking into account all the submitted evaluations. The editor sends the final decision about the article to the author via the system. The articles accepted for publication go to the editing stage. At this stage, the editorial board may make formal and content changes and/or corrections to the text. Editorial board spelling corrections, text placement, citation writing, etc. have full authority in all matters related to The author(s), together with the application to the journal publication process, approves that the changes deemed necessary by the Editorial Board of the Journal of Nephrology Nursing will be made or that changes that will not spoil the content can be made with the permission of the author. After editing and layout processes, a "Control Copy" is sent to the author for final control. The articles are published electronically in the first appropriate issue after the authors review the control copy and send their approval to the journal to be published as it is. Each published article is given a DOI number.



ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
Publication Ethics and Scientific Responsibility
The Journal of Nephrology Nursing adheres to the highest standards in publication ethics and adopts principles developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Medical Editors Association (WAME), and the International Board of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE); recommends the following guidelines on the subject (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations,https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines).
Manuscripts submitted for publication must not be original, previously published, or sent to a different journal at the same time for evaluation. All articles that do not comply with ethical standards are removed from publication. The similarity rate of the text scanned with the plagiarism program, excluding the sources, should not be over 25%.
The Journal of Nephrology Nursing is a journal that adopts the principle of complying with the ethical standards of the 1975 Helsinki Declaration and the Human Experiments Committee revised in 2013. In this direction, the ethics committee approval letters of the original research articles sent for publication in the Journal of Nephrology Nursing should be uploaded to the Dergipark system.

ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE AUTHORS
• Compliance with the Principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/) is sought in all studies containing the “human” element. It should be noted that in such studies, the authors conducted the study in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, in the materials and methods section, they received approval from the ethics committees of their institutions and "informed consent" from the individuals who participated in the study.
• If the item “Animal” is used in the study, the authors should list the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals in the materials and methods section (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/guide-for-the-care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals.pdf) principles, they protect animal rights in their work and they get approval from the ethics committees of their institutions.
• To state that they have received verbal and written “informed consent” from patients in case reports.
• To specify the ethics committee approval information together with the ethics committee name, approval date, and number in the materials and methods section.
• If there is a direct-indirect commercial connection or financial support institution in the study, the authors; used commercial products, drugs, companies, etc. Indicate on the cover page that it has no commercial relationship with or, if any, what kind of relationship (consultant, other agreements)
• Openly declare any conflict of interest related to the application and/or evaluation of the article.
• If previously published figures, pictures, tables, and graphics are used, the source is indicated; If the material used is obtained from a personal archive, obtain permission from the owner and indicate in the article that permission was obtained in the section where the material was used.
• To cite all the sources used in the articles accurately and appropriately.
• Not to submit their work to more than one journal at the same time (Each submission can only be made after the completion of the previous process and work that has been published in another journal cannot be published) and to fill out the Publication Rights Transfer Form.
• Not showing people who did not contribute to the article as authors.
• To state clearly and clearly the distribution of duties of all authors and to fill in the Authorship Contribution Form, effective as of February 15, 2021.
• Informing the editor and the editorial board if there is an error in the work during the publishing process, cooperating during the correction, or withdrawal.
• To keep the data of the published article for 5 years.
Compliance of the articles with scientific and ethical rules is the responsibility of the authors. The corresponding author is responsible for the final version of the article on behalf of all authors.


Conflict of Interest
If there is a direct or indirect commercial connection or financial support institution in the article, the authors; should state on the title page that it has no commercial relationship with the commercial product, drug, company used, and what kind of relationship it has, if any (consultant, other agreements). In addition, the author should disclose if there is a conflict of interest. The types of conflicts of interest envisaged to be disclosed include academic commitments, personal relationships, political, financial, or institutional affiliations.

ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF PEER REVIEWERS
• The peer reviewers agree to evaluate the articles sent to them for evaluation, which are suitable for their field of expertise.
• The peer reviewers protect the journal's impartiality and confidentiality policy in the evaluation of articles.
• Informs the journal editor if an unethical situation is encountered during the evaluation process.
• When it thinks that there is any conflict of interest in the article, it refuses to review the study and informs the journal editor.
• The articles comply with the confidentiality principle after the review process and delete the evaluated studies from the digital environment after the evaluation process.
• It reviews the articles objectively, only in terms of content and scientific contribution.
• Does not allow race, gender, religious belief, political views, or economic/commercial concerns to influence the evaluation process.
• Uses constructive and courteous language during the evaluation process, avoids personal comments and hurtful expressions, and examines the article in a constructive and respectful manner.
• Revises the accepted article on time and in accordance with the above-mentioned ethical rules.

ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE EDITOR AND EDITORIAL BOARD
The editor does not share information about the articles (receipt of the article, the status of the content review process, the reviewers' criticisms, or the conclusion) with anyone other than the authors or reviewers. The editor makes it clear that the articles submitted to the advisors for review are the exclusive property of the authors and this is a privileged communication. Journal advisory board members may not discuss articles publicly. After the reviewers have finished their review, they submit the articles online to the editor. Consultants' reviews cannot be published or disclosed without the permission of the author and editor. Care is taken to keep the identity of the consultants confidential. In some cases, with the decision of the editor, the comments of the advisors regarding the article can be sent to the other advisors who have commented on the same article, provided that their names are kept confidential, and the advisors can be enlightened in this process.

ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES of EDITOR
General Responsibilities
• Strives to meet the scientific needs of readers and authors.
• Strives for the continuous improvement of the journal.
• In case of an ethical violation complaint, it applies the necessary procedures by adhering to the journal's policies and procedures.
• Supports freedom of expression.

Responsibilities Associated with Readers
• Ensures that all published articles are evaluated by suitably qualified referees (including statistical and linguistic evaluation when necessary).
• Adopts the right processes in ensuring that articles are accurate and complete (eg technical editing, use of CONSORT checklist for randomized studies).
• Provides a clear indication of authorship that promotes good practice or the areas in which authors contribute to the article.

Responsibilities Associated with Authors
• Publishes clear instructions regarding expectations in publications and from authors.
• Guidance on authorship criteria and/or who should be on the list of contributors.
• Regularly updates the author's instructions and provides links to related guidelines (eg ICMJE, COPE).
• It ensures the appointment of referees who are suitable for the subject of the article and field of expertise for the examination of the articles.


Responsibilities Related to Peer Reviewers
• Communicate clearly and clearly to the peer reviewers what is expected from the peer reviewers regarding the evaluation process of the articles.
• Requests reviewers to indicate the absence of potential conflicts of interest before agreeing to review a submission (ie, there is no conflict of interest that would prevent me from evaluating this article).
• It manages the evaluation processes in a way that prevents the referees and authors from learning each other's identity.
• Encourages reviewers to ensure the originality of submissions and to be aware of plagiarism.
• Encourages reviewers to comment on possible unethical aspects of submissions (eg unethical research design, insufficient knowledge of patient consent, etc.).
• Monitors the reviewers' performance and takes steps to ensure it is of high quality.
• It creates a database of appropriate reviewers and updates the database according to the performance of the reviewers.
• Reviewers who do not act in accordance with the rules of courtesy, do not evaluate the article correctly/carefully, and make late reviews are removed from the database of the journal.
• It determines three peer reviewers who make the highest quality evaluations in the article evaluation processes and contributes to the increase of the publication quality of the journal by sharing this information.

Those interested in advertising in the journal should contact the Editorial Office (e-mail: nefrohemdergi@gmail.com).