Having regard to the fact that Nigde Medical Journal aims to publish original and important articles, we want the reviewers to help us in the evaluation of the articles submitted.

Recommendations on the reviewing process, how to become a reviewer, and how to write a good review are specified below. We also have our terms and conditions for reviewing based on the COPE Principles, which provide more information on how to conduct an objective and constructive review.

Nigde Medical Journal adopts the double-blind peer review model.

The reviewers are selected from experts who have a doctorate degree or publications in the field of science related to the article. The information of the experts in Turkish universities is obtained from YÖK Academic website, and the information of the experts abroad is obtained from Publons.

1) Objectivity: Reviews should be done objectively. The reviewers should be aware of any personal prejudices and take this into consideration while reviewing an article. The reviewer should clearly express his/her reviews supporting his/her decision.

2) Contribution to Editorial Decision: The peer review process helps the editor in making editorial decisions and gives the author the opportunity to improve the article. In this respect, a reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to review an article or feels that he/she will not be able to complete the review in a timely manner should not accept the invitation to review.

3) Confidentiality: All articles submitted to the journal for peer review should be kept confidential. The reviewers should not share the reviews or information about the article with anybody or they should not contact with authors directly. The information included in the study should not be used in his/her own research by a reviewer without the explicit written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

4) Alertness to Violation of Research and Publication Ethics: The reviewers should be careful about any possible ethical issues in the article and report them to the editor.

5) Conflict of Interest: The reviewers should not accept to evaluate an article with potential conflicts of interest that derive from their relationships with the authors or the institutions that the articles are affiliated with.

6) Request for Self-citation by the Reviewer: If a reviewer suggests that an author should cite to the reviewer's (or their associates') work, this must be for real scientific reasons, not for increasing the reviewer's citation count or increasing the visibility of his/her/their work. See also Ethical Rules for the Reviewers.

The reviews should be objective. During the peer review process, the reviewers are expected to write their reviews by considering the following points:

• Does the article include new and important information?

• Does the abstract explicitly and properly describe the content of the article?

• Is the method comprehensively and clearly defined?

• Are the comments and conclusions testified by the findings?

• Are there enough references to other studies in the field?

• Is the quality of the language good enough?

• Does the Abstract/Keywords accurately reflect the content of the article?

The editors are selected from experts who have a doctorate degree and have publications in compliance with the scope of the journal.

Nigde Medical Journal supports that editors should keep in touch with other editors, believing that it will be useful. Our editors are the members of Turkey Editors' Workshop Group.

Coordinating the Peer Review Process

The editor should ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial, and timely. Research articles should be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers and the editor should demand additional comment when necessary.

Considering the need for appropriate, inclusive, and diverse representation, the editor is expected to select reviewers who is expert in the related field. The editor is expected to follow best way to avoid selecting fraudulent reviewers.

The editor should protect the confidentiality of all materials submitted to the journal and all communication with reviewers, unless otherwise specified with the relevant authors and reviewers. In exceptional circumstances and by asking the publisher’s opinion, the editor may share limited information with the editors of other journals when he/she finds it necessary to investigate the suspected misconduct in research. The editor should protect the identities of the reviewers. Information in a submitted article should not be used in editor's own study without the explicit written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained during the peer review process should be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Editors should review the texts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnicity, citizenship, or the political philosophy of the authors.

An editor who finds out convincing evidence of an ethical violation should coordinate with the Editorial Board and the Publisher to offer the correction or retraction of the article, or other kinds of correction.

The editor should not be involved in decisions about articles written by him/her or his/her family members. Further, any such submission should be subject to all the usual procedures of the journal. The editor should follow the ICMJE guidelines relating to the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.

The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published after examining the peer review reports. The editor must abide by the policies determined by the Editorial Board.

The editor should not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing the metric of any journal. Except for scientific reasons, the editor will not request reference to the articles of his own or another journal.

The editors may consider publishing a correction if minor errors are detected in the published article that do not affect the findings, comments, and conclusions. The editors should consider retracting the article in case of major errors/violations that invalidate the findings and conclusions. The editors should consider publishing an expression of concern if there is possibility that the authors abuse the research or publication, if there are evidence that findings are unreliable, and the authors’ institutions do not investigate the case, or the possible investigation seems unfair or resultless. The COPE and ICJME guidelines are taken into consideration relating to correction, retraction, or expression of concern.