In the Journal of Cumhuriyet University Health Sciences Institute, to evaluate the articles sent to the journal in accordance with the principle of impartiality and objective criteria, each article is reviewed by at least two referees within the scope of the double-blind peer review process in which both referees and authors are kept anonymous. In this way, referees and authors are not aware of each other. Papers that pass initial review are assigned to an Associate Editor, who selects several reviewers based on their expertise in a particular field.
Peer review assists editors and the journal's executive editorial board in making editorial decisions and can help authors improve their articles through editorial communication with authors.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the article based on its originality, the robustness of the methodology, its impact on design research, and its conformity to design practices. To facilitate timely publication, reviewers are given an average of one month to accept the article and complete their reviews. After collecting referee reports, the Associate Editor recommends the acceptability of the article to the Chief Editor.
Reviewers who feel unqualified to review the reported research in an article or find the review impossible should inform the editors and decline the review, suggesting alternative reviewers if possible.
Any unpublished materials described in a submitted article should not be used in the reviewer's research without explicit written consent from the authors. Manuscripts received for review should be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through the peer review process should be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. This applies even to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Reviewers should report to the journal editor if they become aware of any copyright infringement or plagiarism by the authors.
Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, allowing authors to use them to improve the article. Personal criticisms of authors are inappropriate.
Reviewers should identify relevant published works not mentioned by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation, or argument from previous publications should be accompanied by the appropriate citation.
Reviewers who have conflicts of interest arising from competition, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any author, company, or institution related to the article under consideration should immediately disclose their conflicts of interest to the editors and decline the review invitation so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Reviewers evaluate the content without considering race, age, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, citizenship, political orientation, or social class of the authors.