To evaluate an article sent from the system, follow the steps below:

• Login with your ID and password.
• Enter the Journal Panel of Agriculture Faculty of Düzce University from the My Journals section.
• Log in to the reviewer panel.
• Click the title of the article which be appointed for peer review by you from the new invitation section.
• Acceptance or denial of the peer review will ask you on the page that will pop up. For the accept of peer review, please click “Accept the Review” in the green section.
• You will see the full article in the “Documents” after accept review.
• After reviewing the article, please fill the review form in the “Reviews” section. Upload the review file if there is one.
• Lastly, click the button “Send the Review” that spotting the right side of the page.

Peer Reviewing Processes

• In the Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Düzce University, the referees are selected from among the experts on the subjects covered in the articles. All selected referees are informed about the responsibilities of the referees and the ethical principles, article evaluation criteria, and procedure of the Agriculture Faculty of Düzce University.
• Reviewers must take into account after accept peer reviewing on the system “Responsibilities of the reviewer and ethical principles to be followed” and “Reviewing Processes”.
• Reviewers should only accept reviewing of articles for which they have the necessary expertise to perform an appropriate review, can respect the confidentiality of blind peer review, and keep the details of the article confidential at all times.
• Reviewers invited for article review are expected to submit their decision to accept or reject the review within 7 days. The reviewer who does not make a decision at the end of this period is deemed to have rejected the review, and the editor appoints a new reviewer. The reviewer who accept the review is expected to express their opinions within 15 days from the date of invitation acceptance. An additional period of up to 15 days is given to the referee who does not complete the review process within this period if the reviewer requests. If the referee does not request additional time, a new referee can be appointed.
• Each reviewer who accepts the invitation to review is asked to fill in a review form and declare the acceptance or rejection opinions about the article by providing concrete reasons.

In the Review form, the referees are expected to answer the following questions.

1. Are the title and scope of the article in Turkish sufficient?
2. Are the title and scope of the article in English sufficient?
3. Does the Turkish abstract emphasize the purpose of the study, the path followed and the results obtained?
4. Are Turkish keywords appropriate and sufficient?
5. Is the English abstract compatible with the Turkish abstract?
6. Are English keywords compatible with Turkish?
7. Are the materials and methods used suitable for the study?
8. Is the topic presented in a planned and understandable way in the article?
9. Have the findings been discussed appropriately?
10. Are table and figure names and explanations sufficient?
11. Are there any spelling errors? (If there is, please indicate it in the suggestions section for the author.)
12. Are the resources sufficient and up-to-date?
13. Is all the literature used in the text given in the references section?
14. Are the written language and content of the article sufficient?
15. Does the study have original value?
16. Does the study contribute to science?

The reviewers give an opinion on all of these issues by choosing one of the options Yes or No. The referees do not need to approve all of these issues in order for the article to be published. However, in the review form, the suggestions regarding the parts given as “No” and other suggestions to the author should be stated in the "Suggestions to Author" section.

After completing this form, the referees can make the following decisions:

• Revise Manuscript (Major Revision)
• Revise Manuscript (Minor Revision)
• The article is not suitable for publication (Reject)
• The article can be published in its current form (Accept)

Other issues related to the processes

• At least two referees are assigned to each article. However, more referees can be appointed if necessary.
• If one of the referee reports is positive and the other is negative, the editor-in-chief may decide that "the article can be published in its current form" (Accept) or "the article is not suitable for publication" (Reject), or send the article to a third referee.
• A single peer review report is sufficient for the rejection of a manuscript, but at least two peer review reports are required for its acceptance.
• If one of the peer reviews reports "Accept" or "Minor Revision" and the other "Major Revision" and the editor's opinion favors the acceptance of the article, the manuscript is sent to the same reviewer after the author makes the corrections. According to the opinion of the referee who has a "Major Revision" report, the article can be rejected, accepted, or sent to a new referee.
• The reviewer requesting revision may request to re-evaluate the article after revision. An additional 7 days are given to the reviewer for this evaluation.
• Reviewers can contact the editor via the DergiPark messages section for further guidance or report any suspected violations. The correspondence here is not seen by the authors.
• The data of the articles based on field research or data analysis can be requested from the editor by the referee for a healthy review of the analyses in the article. The editor of the journal communicates with the author in this regard and transmits the data to the reviewer.
• Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest regarding the research, authors, and/or research funders. When a conflict of interest is foreseen, the referee should contact the editorial board and indicate a possible conflict of interest. The Conflict of Interest Framework published by COPE will be taken into account in any conflicts of interest that may arise.
• Reviewers cannot make use of the data of the articles they have reviewed before they are published or share this data with others.
• The names of the reviewers who make evaluations in the journal are not disclosed/published.