All manuscripts submitted to the Turkish Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care undergo double-blind peer review. Both authors and reviewers do not know each other. At least three referee recommendations are mandatory at the time of manuscript submission. TJFMPC may use these suggested reviewers to expand the pool of reviewers. However, this does not mean that the evaluation of the proposed referees will always be provided.
The primary purpose of peer review is to decide whether to publish an article (based on quality and suitability for the journal) and to make the article the best it can be before publication. All submissions first go through an internal peer review process. In this review, an appointed field editor makes the initial decision to accept or reject the paper (e.g. the topic is outside the scope of the journal, there are significant flaws in scientific validity, etc.). If the editor thinks the article may be of interest, it is sent for external peer review. Reviewers are selected according to their specialisation. Preference is given to reviewers who provide high-quality reviews within the required timeframe. Once qualified peer reviews are obtained, the editor makes a decision, taking into account other factors such as the reviewers' criticisms, recommendations, relevance to the journal's objectives, usefulness to clinicians or researchers.

Peer Reviewer Selection
Referees are selected based on their work and experience on the subject of the article. The referees selected for manuscript evaluation are those who identify the strengths and weaknesses of the submitted manuscript and analyse it from different perspectives. Reviewers are asked to analyse the assigned manuscript, determine its relevance to the purpose and scope of the journal, and provide a written opinion on its suitability for publication in TJFMPC. Reviewers should not only analyse and comment on the manuscript, but also comment on issues such as the clarity and quality of the manuscript, the validity of the scientific approach, and whether the manuscript provides new information. Reviewers are also expected to make suggestions to help authors improve the manuscript.

Code of Ethics for Journal Peer Reviewers
When the selected reviewer accepts a peer review assignment, the reviewer accepts in advance the ethical standards commonly accepted in biomedical publishing. The ethical responsibilities of reviewers are detailed under ‘Ethical Principles and Editorial Policy’.
Reviewers for the TJFMPC must accept the following:

- Conduct as careful and objective a review as possible.
- Meet the editor's deadline.
- Consider also open-minded innovations or approaches different from your own.
Provide a balanced critique that aims not only to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the paper, but also to provide useful feedback to the authors to improve their paper without overly criticising minor points.
- Avoid scientific misconduct such as misuse of intellectual property.
- Treat each paper as a highly confidential document.
- The confidentiality of authors' opinions must be guaranteed at all times.
- Confidentially forward comments on ethical concerns to the editors.
- Contacting the author for questions about the article is not permitted.
- All criticisms must be reported in writing.
- Inform the editor of any identified conflict of interest (real or perceived) before the end of the review. Not every potential conflict requires rejection of the manuscript.
- Reviewers are encouraged to discuss potential conflicts with the editors if they believe they can provide a fair review.
- Decline the proposed assignment if the following conflicts exist: Financial interests, significant professional or personal relationships or rivalries, antipathy towards the study question/approach, political or special interest relationships.

Reviewer Guidelines
Potential referees are contacted via e-mail with the title of the article, abstract and submission date. The selected referee candidate accepts or rejects the refereeing assignment sent to him/her within two weeks. Failure to respond within the specified period will be considered a rejection. When the given deadline (usually four weeks from the date of acceptance) cannot be met, an extension deadline is proposed. Reviewers are usually selected from among experienced faculty members and researchers in the field. Sometimes reviewers from other related fields may be selected who can contribute to some aspects of the work.