A double-blind peer review system is applied in the Journal of Nursing Effect, and the submitted manuscripts are sent to at least three independent reviewers who are unaware of each other.
Neither the authors nor the reviewers have any information about one another during the process.
Identifying information about the author(s) in the manuscript file submitted by the author is removed and only included on the cover page before being uploaded to the system.
If such information is mistakenly included in the full text, it is removed by the editors before sending the manuscript to reviewers.
Submissions to the journal undergo a preliminary evaluation within a maximum of 15 days, and the authors are informed accordingly.
A manuscript may be rejected at the submission stage based on the opinion of the editor and associate editors regarding its suitability for publication.
Manuscripts that pass the spelling and grammar checks in the preliminary control process are forwarded to peer review by the editor.
The acceptance and publication process of case reports is determined by the decision of the section editor.
If the manuscript is in a foreign language, after checking its compliance with writing rules, it is sent to the journal's language editors (registered on the Dergipark page) for language editing before peer review.
The reviewers are given 30 days to complete their evaluations.
Authors are allowed to make changes to their documents in line with the reviewers’ suggestions.
The Dergipark system does not allow authors to make any changes to the manuscript until the peer review process is completed.
Reviewers can only access the submitted manuscript file if they accept the review invitation.
If any of the reviewers recommends a major revision, the editors evaluate the significance and feasibility of the criticisms/revisions in detail and may decide to reject the manuscript at this stage if necessary.
Once reviews from all three reviewers have been received, they are collectively shared with the author.
Reviewer comments are shared with the author in accordance with the double-blind review system.
Authors are given 4 weeks to respond to both minor and major reviewer comments.
If the corresponding author fails to make the requested corrections after being notified three times about technical issues and writing rules, the manuscript is removed from the review process and the author is informed.
If the reviewers assigned for an accepted article are changed twice, the section editor assumes the role of the reviewer without sending it to another reviewer a third time.
Corrections submitted by the author are checked by the relevant editor.
If one of the reviewers requests revisions, the revised version is also sent to the reviewer who initially accepted the manuscript.
The editor makes the final decision on whether the manuscript will be published or rejected based on the entire review process.
Reviewer comments for all peer-reviewed manuscripts, regardless of acceptance or rejection, are shared with the authors in accordance with the double-blind system.
A manuscript is considered accepted for publication if at least two (2) reviewers recommend acceptance.
If two reviewers recommend rejection and one recommends acceptance, major, or minor revision, the manuscript is rejected.
If one reviewer recommends rejection and the other two recommend major, minor revision, or acceptance, the manuscript is sent back to reviewers.
Authors are required to upload revision response letters to the system by addressing each reviewer individually, using a different color for each reviewer, and indicating them in the revised text as well.

Editor and Reviewer Responsibility
• The editor may reject manuscripts that are deemed unsuitable for publication without sending them to reviewers, based on the decision of the editor and section editor.
• The editor reviews the decisions submitted by section editors and communicates the decision to them via the secretariat.
• There are two (2) associate editors: one responsible for scientific content and indexing, and another for the web and archiving committee.
• The term of office for associate editors is three (3) years.
• The associate editor responsible for scientific content conducts the preliminary evaluation of manuscripts submitted through Dergipark, evaluates compliance with writing rules, and requests necessary corrections. Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements are rejected following appropriate warnings. Manuscripts that are deemed original and meet submission requirements are forwarded to section editors to begin the scientific review process.
• The associate editor assigns manuscripts to appropriate section editors based on their subject area and organizes the distribution and quantity of manuscripts among section editors.
• The associate editor responsible for technical processes plans and manages the journal’s triannual publication schedule together with the editor and section editors.
• Section editors manage the submission process through Dergipark and forward manuscripts to reviewers. After receiving feedback from reviewers, they must inform the author of the evaluation result within at least six (6) months.
• Delays caused by the author in fulfilling revision requests may be considered a valid reason for rejecting the manuscript.
• Each manuscript is evaluated by three (3) independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Manuscripts deemed publishable are forwarded to the editor-in-chief upon the section editor’s approval. The editor-in-chief has the final decision regarding publication.
• Reviewers are given four (4) weeks to respond to review invitations.
• Reviewers are given 30 days to complete their evaluations. Reviewers who decline three consecutive invitations or consistently provide delayed reviews are removed from the DEUHFED Dergipark reviewer pool.