It is a must to prepare the manuscripts in accordance with research and publication ethics. The authors should state that they accept ethical principles in all human clinical research and that they conduct the research in accordance with these principles. These are related in the Materials and Methods section: each prospective and retrospective study from the ethics committee of the institution where the clinical research was conducted. They have obtained consent for the study and have obtained informed consent from the persons participating in the study or their guardians; In experimental studies on animals, they have to state that they protect animal rights and that they have received approval from the relevant experimental animal ethics committee. Regarding the results of experimental studies on humans or experimental animals, it is obligatory to submit an ethics committee approval document during the application to the journal. In the presence of the author(s), commercial link or institution providing financial support for the study; used commercial product, drug, company, etc. He should inform the title page (in declarations section) how he is related to the editor. The absence of such a situation should also be stated on title page (in declarations section).

In studies that require ethics committee approval, the Ethics Committee Approval Document should be uploaded to the system during the article submission process, and the information about the permission (board name, date and issue number) should be stated in the material and method section, as well as in the declarations section of title page.

Studies that require the approval of the Ethics Committee are as follows.

*All kinds of research conducted with qualitative or quantitative approaches that require data collection from the participants by using survey, interview, focus group work, observation, experiment, interview techniques

*Use of humans and animals (including material/data) for experimental or other scientific purposes,

-On humans clinical studies,

-Animal studies,

-Retrospective studies in accordance with the law on the protection of personal data, (If requested, the permission document from the institution where the study was carried out should also be uploaded to the system.)

In the Case Report / Case Report Series; the patient's open identity should not be shared. It should be stated that the "informed consent form" was obtained from the patient, indicating that publication was permitted in declarations section

of title page

*Referees must not accept contributions from other academics or researchers when evaluating a paper, without the knowledge and permission of the journal editor. If a referee believes another academic/researcher will contribute to the paper's evaluation process, they must clearly state this person's contribution in the evaluation report and inform the editorial office.

*Referees may decline a referee invitation due to a conflict of interest, academic or personal reasons, or because they believe they cannot competently evaluate the paper. The rejection decision must be communicated to the editorial office as soon as possible after receiving the invitation.

*Referees should not request that the author of the paper they are reviewing cite their own work, without a valid academic reason, solely to increase the number of citations. If a referee deems citing their own work necessary, they must provide detailed academic justification for this. They should carefully craft their wording when detailing this, preventing the author from guessing the referee's identity. Citing the referee's work should not constitute the primary motivation for accepting the paper. The reviewer must evaluate the manuscript objectively, regardless of whether the manuscript cites their own work.

*Referee reviews should not contain generalizing statements about the manuscript. For example, comments such as "This is a successful article, it can be published" or "This is an unsuccessful article, it cannot be published" that do not provide a detailed overview of the manuscript should not be submitted. The editor reserves the right to reject or disregard these comments that do not align with the journal's publication and review objectives. In such cases, the manuscript is sent to another reviewer, resulting in a waste of time for the editorial team and the authors. To ensure an efficient review process, reviewers should include detailed explanations, whenever possible, in their decisions regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection. If a manuscript is to be accepted, its contribution to the literature, its strengths, and potential areas for improvement should be explained in detail. Detailed comments about the manuscript are also required for revision and rejection decisions.

*An evaluation form is sent to the reviewer through the system during the review process. This form must be completed and the decision regarding the manuscript must be explained with the reasons given. Additionally, it would be appropriate to add comments and corrections to the text and upload them to the system. Detailed revision requests for such texts are crucial for authors to improve their work in a concrete and detailed manner.

*Any statements that would allow the author to identify the reviewer should be avoided in the peer-review form or in the revised manuscript file, and the anonymity of the review should be maintained.

During the IJDOR review process, the editorial team, editorial board, reviewers, and authors are committed to adhering to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) criteria regarding their responsibilities. Articles submitted to IJDOR are first evaluated by the secretary for spelling rules, plagiarism rates, and compliance with publication policies. Articles deemed suitable for inclusion in the review process are sent to two expert reviewers in the field, and a double-blind peer-review process is implemented. Following peer review, the Editor-in-Chief makes the decision on the manuscript.

When an article is received, the Editor-in-Chief appoints an Associate Editor to conduct the initial review. If the article does not comply with the journal's editorial guidelines, contains plagiarism, raises ethical concerns, or does not meet quality standards, the Editor returns the article with constructive feedback and justification. If the article contains serious issues, such as formatting issues, lack of methodology, or insufficient theoretical foundation, it may be returned to the author for revisions or rejected outright if it does not meet the journal's quality standards. Once the necessary revisions are made or the Associate Editor provides a positive evaluation, the review is submitted to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief decides whether the manuscript will proceed to the double-blind peer review process. At each stage of revision or rejection, the author receives a detailed explanation to ensure the process proceeds with clarity and transparency.

After the manuscript is reviewed, the editors select potential reviewers based on the reviewers' areas of expertise and research interests. After the reviews are submitted, the editors ensure that the reviewer comments are fair, comprehensive, and constructive. Based on the reviewers' comments, the assigned editors formulate a recommendation on how to proceed with the manuscript and convey this potential decision to the Editor-in-Chief. The final decision on the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief.