ETHICAL PRINCIPLES, PUBLICATION POLICY AND MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION PROCESS

Journal of Health Systems and Policies (JHESP) is a peer-reviewed academic journal that publishes original, legally compliant, and interdisciplinary scholarly works in the fields of health systems, health policy, and medical sciences. The Journal conducts its publishing activities in accordance with the ethical principles and publication policies set out below.

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal must be original, must not have been published previously, and must not be under simultaneous consideration by another journal. Following editorial pre-screening, each manuscript submitted to the Journal is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers under a double-blind peer-review model.

Plagiarism, duplicate publication, ghost or fraudulent authorship, unjustified denial of authorship, fabrication or falsification of data or findings, fragmentation of research results for the purpose of increasing the number of publications, copyright infringement, concealment of conflicts of interest, and similar practices are regarded as unethical publication practices.

JHESP adheres to the publication ethics principles and international standards established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Editors, section editors, reviewers, and authors are expected to act in accordance with these internationally recognized standards of scholarly publishing.

Authors must not submit to JHESP any work that has previously been published or is currently under consideration for publication by another journal. Where ideas, expressions, methods, data, or findings belonging to others are used, authors are responsible for providing complete and appropriate citations to the relevant sources.

Plagiarism may take various forms, including the use of an entire work or specific sections of a work without proper attribution, the presentation of data or findings obtained from other studies as the author's own, or the reproduction of others' statements without appropriate citation. All forms of plagiarism are considered unethical publication practices and are unacceptable under any circumstances.

Authors are required to check their manuscripts for similarity prior to submission.

PUBLICATION POLICY

Journal of Health Systems and Policies (JHESP) is published by Istanbul Medipol University. The Journal regards the dissemination of scientific knowledge and the facilitation of access to information as fundamental principles of its publication policy.

Open Access Policy

Journal of Health Systems and Policies (JHESP) is a fully open access journal. All articles published in JHESP are freely and immediately available to users and their institutions without subscription, registration, or any access charges.

Published articles are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Under this license, users may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, link to the full texts of articles, and reuse or adapt them for any lawful purpose, including commercial purposes.

Under the CC BY 4.0 license, users must give appropriate credit to the author(s) and the original source, provide a link to the license, and indicate whether any changes have been made.

Copyright and Licensing Policy

Copyright in articles published in the Journal of Health Systems and Policies (JHESP) remains with the author(s). Authors retain their copyright and publishing rights and do not transfer any exclusive rights to the Journal.

By publishing their articles in JHESP, authors grant the Journal the right of first publication and non-exclusive rights to publish, reproduce, distribute, make available, and archive the article. The granting of these rights to the Journal does not restrict the authors’ rights to use, share, or republish their work elsewhere.

All articles published in JHESP are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license permits the published material to be shared and adapted for any lawful purpose, including commercial purposes, provided that appropriate credit is given to the author(s) and the original source, a link to the license is provided, and any changes made are indicated.

Self-Archiving Policy

Authors may deposit the submitted version (Submitted Version), the accepted manuscript (Author Accepted Manuscript), and the published version (Version of Record) of their articles in institutional or subject-based repositories, personal or institutional websites, and other appropriate scholarly repositories without any embargo period.

When depositing the published version, authors are encouraged to provide the full bibliographic citation of the article, the DOI where available, and a link to the version published in JHESP.

The deposit and reuse of the published version are subject to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

Other Publication Principles

During the evaluation process, manuscripts are assessed solely on the basis of their scientific content, irrespective of the authors’ identity, nationality, gender, religious beliefs, political views, or other personal characteristics. This approach is intended to ensure an objective, impartial, and fair evaluation process.

All publication expenses of the Journal are covered by Istanbul Medipol University. JHESP does not charge authors any fees for manuscript submission, evaluation, processing, publication, or any other stage of the publication process. This policy is intended to prevent financial barriers to participation in scholarly publishing.

The authors are responsible for the views, evaluations, and conclusions expressed in articles published in the Journal. Istanbul Medipol University and the Journal of Health Systems and Policies cannot be held responsible for the views expressed in published works.

MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION PROCESS

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal undergo a comprehensive evaluation process consisting of preliminary review, section editor evaluation, double-blind peer review, language review, and, where necessary, revision.

Manuscripts that fall outside the Journal's aims and scope, are inadequate in terms of academic language and expression, contain scientifically unacceptable errors or deficiencies, lack originality, or fail to comply with the Journal's publication principles may be rejected by the editors without being sent for peer review. In such cases, authors are notified of the rejection decision together with the reasons for the decision.

Double-Blind Peer Review

The Journal applies a double-blind peer-review model in order to support the objectivity and impartiality of the evaluation process. Under this model, authors do not know the identities of the reviewers evaluating their manuscripts, and reviewers do not know the identities of the authors whose manuscripts they evaluate. Mutual confidentiality of author and reviewer identities is intended to preserve the independence of the evaluation process. Peer-review reports are submitted electronically and anonymously.

To protect the integrity of the double-blind peer-review process, reviewer identities are not disclosed by the Journal. Upon request, reviewers may be provided with written documentation confirming their reviewing contribution to the Journal.

Authors may not communicate directly with reviewers. Evaluations, reviewer reports, and revision requests are communicated to the corresponding author through the journal management system and via the editor.

The evaluations and recommendations provided in reviewer reports contribute to the improvement of manuscripts. Editors and section editors ensure that reviewer comments are communicated to authors within a scholarly and constructive editorial process.

Preliminary Review Stage

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal are initially examined for formal and scientific compliance. At this stage, the following aspects of the manuscript are evaluated:

• Compliance with the Journal's aims and scope,
• Compliance with publication and author guidelines,
• Availability of ethics committee approvals, permissions, and required declarations,
• Adequacy of academic language and expression,
• Similarity rate,
• Compliance with principles of scientific research and publication ethics.

Manuscripts deemed suitable at the preliminary review stage are forwarded to the relevant section editor for detailed evaluation of their scholarly content.

Section Editor Evaluation

Manuscripts that successfully complete the preliminary review stage are evaluated by section editors appointed according to their areas of expertise.

The section editor conducts a detailed assessment of the manuscript's research problem, theoretical framework, methodology, findings, conclusions, and original contribution. The following considerations are taken into account:

• Compliance with the academic standards of the relevant scientific field,
• Whether the manuscript addresses a gap in the literature,
• Whether the research methodology is scientifically valid and reliable,
• Whether the manuscript sections are structured appropriately for a scholarly article,
• Consistency with the Journal's aims and scope,
• Compliance with the Journal's publication principles.

Manuscripts considered unsuitable for peer review following the section editor's evaluation are returned to the authors with a reasoned decision no later than one month from the date of submission.

For manuscripts deemed suitable for peer review, the double-blind peer-review process is initiated. The section editor appoints at least two reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject and methodology of the manuscript. Reviewer selection also takes into account the candidates' scholarly publications and research experience relevant to the subject and methodology of the manuscript.

Peer Review Stage

Manuscripts that successfully complete the preliminary review and section editor evaluation stages are sent by the section editor to at least two independent reviewers, taking their areas of expertise into consideration.

The section editor may select reviewers from the JHESP reviewer pool or propose new reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewer appointments may be made directly by the section editor or on the basis of the section editor's recommendation.

Reviewer invitations are sent automatically through the DergiPark system. Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the period specified by the editors, beginning from the date on which they accept the invitation.

By accepting an invitation to review, reviewers are considered to have agreed to:

• Evaluate the manuscript within the specified period,
• Submit their review report through the DergiPark system,
• Act in accordance with scientific and ethical principles,
• Maintain the confidentiality of all information relating to the manuscript.

If a reviewer fails to complete the evaluation within the specified period, the section editor may assign the manuscript to another reviewer.

Where one reviewer recommends acceptance and another recommends rejection, the section editor may send the manuscript to a third reviewer. Taking into account the reviewer reports and their own scholarly assessment, the section editor submits a recommendation concerning the manuscript to the Editorial Board.

Peer Review Reports

The peer-review stage is completed when reviewers finalize and upload their evaluation reports to the system.

Reviewers assess manuscripts by completing the Peer Review Form. The principal aspects considered in the evaluation include:

• Originality and scholarly contribution of the manuscript,
• The extent to which the title and abstract accurately reflect the manuscript,
• Adequacy and currency of the literature review,
• Clarity of the research question and objectives,
• Appropriateness of the selected methodology for the research objectives,
• Accurate, clear, and systematic presentation of findings,
• Adequacy of the discussion and conclusion sections,
• Compliance of figures, tables, and graphs with scientific standards,
• Relevance, adequacy, and currency of the references,
• Appropriate use of terminology,
• Compliance with standards of academic writing and grammar,
• Compliance with principles of scientific research and publication ethics.

Following the evaluation, the reviewer provides an overall assessment of the manuscript and a recommendation regarding the publication decision. Reviewer recommendations are:

• Accept,
• Minor Revision,
• Major Revision,
• Reject.

Reviewers may provide their evaluations in the “Comments, Criticisms and Recommendations” section for communication to the authors. Where revision suggestions need to be indicated directly on the manuscript, reviewers may upload an additional file to the system for access by the authors.

Based on reviewer comments, the section editor may request revisions to the manuscript. Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the requested changes and submit a detailed response file explaining the revisions made. Unless the section editor decides to reject the manuscript, reviewers who have recommended major revision will be provided with the revised manuscript for further evaluation.

The final decision regarding publication of the manuscript is made by the Editorial Board.

Appeals and Complaints Process

Appeals against reviewer comments and editorial decisions, as well as complaints concerning the Journal's publication processes, are handled in accordance with the following procedure:

• Appeals must be submitted to jhesp@medipol.edu.tr within 30 days of the date on which the decision is communicated to the corresponding author.
• Appeals must be submitted by the corresponding author.
• The appeal must address each contested evaluation or decision separately and provide a scientific justification for each point.
• Appeals that merely express dissatisfaction with a decision and do not provide a scientific justification will not be considered.
• Appeals are initially reviewed by the editor.
• Where deemed necessary, the editor may refer the appeal to the relevant section editor or request an additional opinion from an independent reviewer.
• Appeals are resolved within no more than 60 days. The decision and its justification are communicated to the corresponding author in writing.
• Decisions made following an appeal are final, and no second appeal concerning the same decision may be submitted.
• Complaints concerning process management, delays, reviewer conduct or tone, and editorial impartiality may also be submitted to the same email address and will be responded to within no more than 30 days.
• Allegations of ethical misconduct are handled separately from the appeals and complaints process under the “Reporting and Sanctions for Ethical Misconduct” procedure.

PUBLICATION ETHICS

Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Journal of Health Systems and Policies follows the recommendations of the ICMJE, the principles of COPE, and the ethical guidance issued by the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence tools in scientific research and publication processes.

Authors' Responsibilities

• Artificial intelligence tools may not be listed as authors. Authorship is a status reserved for natural persons who are capable of assuming responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work.
• If artificial intelligence tools have been used during preparation of the manuscript for purposes such as text generation, language editing, translation, literature searching, data analysis, coding, image preparation, or table creation, such use must be disclosed under the heading “Artificial Intelligence Use Statement” at the end of the manuscript and before the References section.
• The Artificial Intelligence Use Statement must specify the name and version of the tool used and describe the stage of the work at which it was used and the purpose for which it was employed.
• If no artificial intelligence tools were used in preparing the manuscript, this must also be explicitly stated under the same heading.
• Authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy, reliability, citation integrity, and copyright compliance of content generated using artificial intelligence.
• Artificial intelligence outputs may not be cited as scientific sources.
• Undisclosed use of artificial intelligence, where identified, will be evaluated under the “Reporting and Sanctions for Ethical Misconduct” procedure.

Reviewers' and Editors' Responsibilities

• Every manuscript under evaluation is considered a confidential document.
• Scientific assessments contained in reviewer reports must reflect the reviewer's own views and evaluations.
• If an artificial intelligence tool has been used in preparing a peer-review report, this must be disclosed to the editor.

Similarity Screening

• Every manuscript submitted to the Journal is screened for similarity using Turnitin software during the preliminary review stage.
• Similarity screening is conducted excluding direct quotations and the reference list.
• The overall similarity rate, excluding quotations and references, must not exceed 20%.
• Even where the overall similarity rate falls below the specified threshold, similarity that is substantially concentrated in a single source or appears in continuous blocks of text may still be considered problematic.
• Similarities arising from established descriptions of methods, standardized scale items, or legislative texts may be excluded from the assessment provided that the relevant sources have been appropriately cited.
• The section editor determines whether such similarities may be excluded from the assessment and records the justification for the decision in the manuscript file.
• Manuscripts exceeding the specified similarity threshold are returned to the authors without being sent for peer review.
• Where there is evidence that similarity constitutes plagiarism, the manuscript is rejected and the “Reporting and Sanctions for Ethical Misconduct” procedure is initiated.

Citation Ethics

• Editors and reviewers may not require authors, during the evaluation process, to cite the Journal, their own publications, or a particular author.
• Citation recommendations for which no clear scientific justification is provided are regarded as coercive citation and constitute an ethical violation.
• Reviewers may recommend references where they clearly identify aspects of the manuscript's scholarly content that require improvement and explain the scientific rationale for their recommendations in the review report.
• Authors are not required to use references recommended by reviewers. The decision not to adopt a recommendation may not, by itself, influence the decision concerning the manuscript.
• The number of citations made to the Journal may not be used as a criterion in decisions to accept or reject manuscripts.
• Authors must observe the principle of scholarly relevance when citing their own work. Self-citations that are not directly relevant to the subject or content of the manuscript are not acceptable.

Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest refers to financial, institutional, personal, or academic relationships that may influence an individual's scientific or professional judgment.

The existence of a conflict of interest does not in itself constitute an ethical violation. However, failure to disclose an existing or potential conflict of interest is considered an ethical violation.

At the time of submission, authors must complete and upload the JHESP Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form. A conflict of interest declaration must also appear at the end of the manuscript under the heading “Conflict of Interest Statement.” Where no conflict of interest exists, this must be explicitly stated.

Editors, section editors, and reviewers are subject to the same principles. Where a relationship exists that may give rise to a conflict of interest in relation to a manuscript they are evaluating, they must withdraw from the evaluation process and notify the editor.

Authorship and Changes to the Author List

Authorship is granted to individuals who meet the following criteria established by the ICMJE:

1. Making a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data;
2. Contributing to the drafting of the manuscript or critically revising it for important intellectual content;
3. Approving the final version to be published;
4. Agreeing to be accountable for the integrity and accuracy of the work.

Contributions made by individuals who do not meet these criteria must be described in the Acknowledgments section, with the nature of their contribution specified.

The author list, order of authors, and corresponding author must be finalized at the time the manuscript is submitted to the Journal. Requests to add or remove authors or change the order of authors after the evaluation process has begun are considered exceptional and are subject to the following procedure:

• The corresponding author must submit a written request providing a detailed justification for the proposed change.
• Signed written approval must be provided by all existing authors and by any individual to be added to or removed from the author list.
• A personally signed statement from any author to be removed from the author list is mandatory.
• The request must explain the nature of the contribution made by the individual to be removed and whether that contribution will be acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section.
• The editor makes the decision regarding the requested change. The decision, together with its justification and date, is recorded in the manuscript file.
• Requests for changes submitted after completion of the peer-review process may be accepted only where a concrete and valid justification relating to the authorship criteria is provided.

Reporting and Sanctions for Ethical Misconduct

JHESP recognizes that compliance with publication ethics is not solely the responsibility of authors and therefore establishes the following procedure for addressing allegations of ethical misconduct.

Reporting

Allegations concerning the unethical publication practices described on this page, unauthorized use of data, and undisclosed use of artificial intelligence may be submitted to jhesp@medipol.edu.tr.

The identity of the person making the report will be kept confidential. Anonymous reports will be considered where they contain specific information and supporting evidence.

Investigation

The editor conducts a preliminary assessment of any allegation of ethical misconduct and, where deemed necessary, may seek the opinion of the Editorial Board.

As part of the investigation, authors may be asked to provide:

• A written explanation or response,
• Raw research data,
• Ethics committee documentation,
• Institutional permissions,
• Informed consent documents,
• Other supporting documentation.

Authors are given 30 days to submit their explanation or response. The investigation is conducted in accordance with the relevant flowcharts and guidance published by COPE.

Outcomes and Possible Actions

Correction (Corrigendum/Erratum): Where an error or omission is identified in a published work that does not affect the principal findings or conclusions of the work, the Journal publishes a correction notice. The correction notice is published in connection with the original article and is assigned a separate DOI.

Expression of Concern: Where serious concerns exist regarding the reliability of a work but the investigation has not yet been completed or no definitive conclusion can be reached, the Journal may publish an Expression of Concern. The Expression of Concern is linked to the original article and explains the reasons for the concern to readers. An Expression of Concern does not constitute a definitive finding of ethical misconduct; it indicates only that the matter remains under investigation.

Retraction: Where the existence of ethical misconduct is confirmed following an investigation, the article is retracted. The retraction notice is made publicly accessible. The article is not removed from the archive; instead, a clear indication that the article has been retracted is added to its records and PDF file. The retraction notice states the reason for the retraction, whether the request or decision originated from the authors or the Journal, and the date of the decision.

Where deemed necessary, the author's affiliated institution and any institution or organization that supported the work may be informed of the outcome of the investigation.

Manuscripts submitted by authors who have been confirmed to have committed ethical misconduct will not be considered for publication for a period of three years.

RESEARCH ETHICS

Research Reporting Guidelines

Authors are encouraged to prepare their manuscripts with reference to international reporting guidelines appropriate to the research design.

Authors may optionally submit the checklist associated with the relevant reporting guideline as a supplementary file. Submission of the checklist may facilitate the peer-review process.

The principal reporting guidelines that may be used according to research design include:

• Randomized controlled trials: CONSORT
• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: PRISMA
• Scoping reviews: PRISMA-ScR
• Observational studies, including cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies: STROBE
• Qualitative research: COREQ or SRQR
• Case reports: CARE
• Health economic evaluations: CHEERS
• Web-based survey research: CHERRIES
• Implementation studies: StaRI
• Other research designs: the relevant reporting guideline available through the EQUATOR Network

Current versions of the reporting guidelines are available through the EQUATOR Network:

https://www.equator-network.org

Data Availability and Reproducibility

The availability of research data under appropriate conditions is important for promoting scientific transparency and supporting the verifiability of research findings. Subject to legal, ethical, and confidentiality-related limitations, JHESP encourages the sharing of research data under appropriate conditions.

• Where data are shared through a data repository, authors are encouraged to provide the name of the repository together with a persistent link or DOI.
• For studies using secondary data, the data source and, where available, the access link and conditions governing access to and use of the data must be clearly stated.
• Where necessary for scientific evaluation or verification of published findings, and to the extent permitted by applicable legal and ethical requirements, the Journal may request from authors the data underlying the research, analysis code, measurement instruments, or other relevant documentation.
• The use and sharing of datasets containing personal or sensitive data must comply with the Turkish Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698 and other applicable data protection regulations. Public disclosure of data that could compromise the protection of personal data or the confidentiality of research participants is not expected.

LEGAL AND SPECIFIC PERMISSIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Ethics committee approval alone is not sufficient in every case for a study to be eligible for publication. In the circumstances specified below, written permission must be obtained from the relevant institution or rights holder independently of ethics committee approval, and such permission must be disclosed in the manuscript:

• For studies conducted in public or private institutions such as hospitals, healthcare institutions, schools, businesses, or public authorities that involve the institution's data, records, or employees, administrative permission must be obtained from the relevant institution.
• For retrospective studies conducted using patient files, electronic health records, or administrative databases, written permission must be obtained from the institution that holds the data.
• Where scales, questionnaires, images, or photographs belonging to third parties are used, permission must be obtained from the relevant rights holder.
• Where works protected under intellectual and artistic property legislation are used, compliance with applicable copyright legislation must be declared.
• For manuscripts derived from a thesis, the title of the thesis, the institution at which it was conducted, the year of completion, and the National Thesis Center number must be stated in the Methods or Acknowledgments section.
• For studies conducted as part of a project or with external support, the name of the supporting institution or organization and the project number must likewise be disclosed in the manuscript.

Ethics committee approvals, institutional permissions, consent documents, and other required permissions must be uploaded to the system at the time of submission. The institution granting the permission, the date of the permission, and the relevant decision or reference number must be clearly stated in the Methods section and under the “Ethics Committee Approval Statement” at the end of the manuscript.

Permission may not be presumed or regarded as implicitly granted. Manuscripts for which the required permissions and consent documentation have not been provided will not be sent for peer review.

ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Authors' Ethical Responsibilities

Authors submitting manuscripts to Journal of Health Systems and Policies are required to comply fully with the principles of scientific research and publication ethics. Their principal ethical responsibilities include the following:

• Authors must not submit to JHESP any work that has previously been published elsewhere or is currently under consideration for publication by another journal.
• Authors are responsible for ensuring the scientific and ethical appropriateness of their work.
• By submitting a manuscript to the Journal, authors are considered to have declared that the work is original, has not previously been published elsewhere, and is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal, including in another language.
• All sources used in the work must be cited accurately and completely.
• Contributions made by individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet the criteria for authorship must be acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section.
• Individuals who have provided only technical, writing, or financial support must not be listed as authors; the nature of their contribution must be described in the Acknowledgments section.
• Individuals listed as authors must have made a direct academic and scientific contribution to the work.
• The order of authors must be determined by mutual agreement among all authors.
• Requests to add or remove authors or change the order of authors after the evaluation process has begun are exceptional and are subject to the procedure set out under “Authorship and Changes to the Author List.”
• Authors must appropriately cite all sources used in preparing their work in accordance with ethical principles.
• JHESP may request information or raw research data from authors at any stage of the evaluation process. Authors must be prepared to provide the requested data and documentation.
• If authors identify a significant error or omission in their work during the evaluation process or after publication, they must contact the Editorial Board so that the appropriate notification, correction, or retraction procedure can be initiated.

Ethical Responsibilities of the Editorial Board

The Editorial Board of Journal of Health Systems and Policies is committed to acting in accordance with the following ethical principles:

• The Editorial Board actively works to improve the scientific and editorial quality of the Journal.
• It supports authors' freedom of scientific expression.
• It takes appropriate measures to prevent plagiarism, citation manipulation, data fabrication, and other scientific or ethical misconduct.
• The Editorial Board is responsible for the final decision regarding publication of manuscripts submitted to the Journal.
• Publication decisions take into account the scientific quality, currency, originality, methodology, clarity of expression, and contribution of the manuscript to the relevant field.
• The Editorial Board is responsible for ensuring that the publication processes of manuscripts submitted to the Journal are conducted systematically and in accordance with scientific principles.
• Editorial decisions are made independently, with due regard for the public interest and the principles of scholarly publishing.
• All information concerning submitted manuscripts is kept confidential until publication.
• The Editorial Board is committed to protecting the intellectual property rights associated with published works.
• It takes appropriate measures to prevent published works from infringing the intellectual property rights of others.
• It ensures that similarity and plagiarism screening is conducted and that the originality of published works is protected.
• The race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, religious beliefs, political views, or other personal characteristics of authors may not be taken into account when evaluating manuscripts.
• Manuscripts are evaluated by the Language Editor for compliance with standards of grammar, academic expression, and writing.
• The Language Editor also oversees the linguistic and stylistic quality of editorial documents prepared in the Journal's publication language, in addition to manuscripts intended for publication.
• The Editorial Board provides authors with clear, reasoned, and informative communications concerning the evaluation process.
• It establishes and implements policies relating to publication, double-blind peer review, evaluation processes, and ethical principles.

Reviewers' Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers for Journal of Health Systems and Policies are expected to act in accordance with the following ethical principles:

• Reviewers should accept assignments only for manuscripts directly related to their areas of expertise.
• Reviewers who do not possess sufficient expertise in the subject of a manuscript or are unable to complete the evaluation within the specified period must notify the Editorial Board as soon as possible.
• Reviewers contribute to ensuring that editorial decisions concerning the manuscripts they evaluate are made on a scientific basis.
• Where appropriate, reviewers communicate comments and recommendations intended to improve the manuscript to the authors through the Editorial Board.
• The confidentiality of reviewer identities is maintained throughout all stages of the evaluation process.
• Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts entrusted to them impartially, independently, and in accordance with the principle of confidentiality.
• Before publication, information, data, or findings contained in a manuscript may not be shared with others or used by reviewers for their own research without the authors' explicit permission.
• Where reviewers identify copyright infringement, plagiarism, or substantial similarity to a previously published work in a manuscript they are evaluating, they must notify the Editorial Board as soon as possible.
• Reviewers must provide their comments through the Peer Review Form in a reasoned manner and on the basis of scientific criteria.
• Where a reviewer report is found to contain comments that are not based on scientific criteria, are insulting, include personal judgments, or otherwise fail to comply with ethical principles, the Editorial Board may contact the reviewer and request that the report be reviewed and revised.
• Reviewers are responsible for completing their evaluations within the period communicated to them.

DIGITAL ARCHIVING AND PRESERVATION POLICY

Journal of Health Systems and Policies uses the digital archiving and backup services provided through the TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM DergiPark infrastructure to ensure the long-term preservation and accessibility of its published content.

All articles published in the Journal are assigned persistent DOI identifiers and are registered internationally through the Crossref system.

In the event of a technical interruption affecting access to the Journal's website or its published content, preservation and subsequent restoration of access to the content are ensured through DergiPark's digital archiving and backup systems.