Evaluation Principles
1) Articles that have not been published before or that are not yet under evaluation in another journal for publication and that are approved by each author are accepted for evaluation.
2) Submitted and pre-checked articles are scanned for plagiarism using Ithenticate and intihal.net software.
3) Hitit Medical Journal carries out a double-blind review process. All studies will first be evaluated by the editor in terms of suitability for the journal. The articles deemed appropriate are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers to evaluate the scientific quality of the article.
4) The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the articles independently of the authors' ethnic origin, gender, nationality, religious belief and political philosophy. It ensures that the articles submitted for publication undergo a fair double-blind peer-review.
5) Chief editor; does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors and reviewers.
6) The editor is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the articles. Editor's decision is final.
7) Editors are not involved in decisions about articles written by them or their family members or colleagues, or related to products or services in which the editor is concerned. Any such submission is subject to all of the journal's usual procedures.

Principles of the Peer Process for the Work of the Editorial Staff
In the evaluation process of manuscripts received as new submissions in which any of the editorial board members is an author, the relevant board member is removed from the board membership by the editor-in-chief and reappointed to the board membership only after the process is completed. This ensures that the relevant board member does not have any influence on the process.

Authors Responsibilities
The author must comply with research and publication training.
The author should not attempt to publish the same work in more than one journal.
The author should fully indicate the works he has used in the writing of the article in the bibliography.

Editor's Responsibilities
The editor evaluates the articles for scientific content, regardless of the ethnic origin, gender, nationality, religious belief or political opinion of the authors.
The editor makes a fair double-blind peer-review of the articles submitted for publication and ensures that all information about the submitted articles is kept confidential before publication.
The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential and this is a privileged interaction. The referees and editorial board cannot discuss the articles with other people. Anonymity of referees should be ensured. In certain cases, the editor may share one reviewer's review with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.
The editor is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication. It is also his/her responsibility to issue a correction note or implement a withdrawal as necessary.
Editor; does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors and referees. Only the referee has full authority to appoint and the Editorial Board is responsible for the final decision regarding the publication of the articles in the journal.

Responsibilities of the Reviewers
Reviewers; There should be no conflicts of interest regarding the research, authors and/or research funders.
The evaluations of the referees should be objective.
The language and style used by the referees should not be offensive to the author.
Reviewers must ensure that all information regarding submitted articles remains confidential until the article is published.
Reviewers should notify the editor if they notice copyright infringement or plagiarism in the work they are reviewing.
A reviewer who feels inadequate to review an article or thinks that he/she will not be able to complete the review within the specified time should withdraw from the review process.
During the refereeing process, the referees are expected to evaluate the following points: Does the article contain new and important information? / Does the abstract clearly and neatly describe the content of the article? / Is the method coherent and clearly defined? / Are the comments and conclusions made substantiated by the findings? / Are adequate references given to other studies in the field? / Is the language quality adequate?

Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Screening
Study; The journal is reviewed by the editor for compliance with publication principles, academic writing rules and APA Citation System, and is screened for plagiarism using iThenticate or intihal.net. The preliminary review is completed within a maximum of 15 days. The plagiarism similarity rate must be less than 20%. Even though the similarity rate is 1%, if the citation and citation are not duly made, plagiarism may still be in question. In this respect, citation and citation rules should be known and carefully applied by the author:

Citation/Indirect Citation: If a reference is made to an opinion, discussion or determination in a source and the cited opinion is lined up with the citing researcher's own words, a footnote (1) should be placed at the end of the sentence. If the reference is to a certain page or page range of the work, the page number should be given. If there is a reference to the whole work, that is, if it is cited in a way that requires the reader to examine the whole work, the footnotes include "See about this.", "See about this opinion.", "See about this discussion." or just “see.” The source should be indicated after the statement.

Quotation/Quote: If the relevant part is taken from the referenced source exactly as it is, without touching the dot and comma, the quoted part is "given in double quotes" and the source is indicated by giving the footnote number1 at the end. Existing quotations in the directly quoted text are written using 'single quotes'. If the directly quoted part is longer than three lines (more than forty words), it is shown as a separate paragraph. In order to distinguish long quotations from the main text, it should be preferred that they be written in a font size one smaller than the normal text size and the entire paragraph should be indented from the left at the beginning of the carriageway. Some words, sentences and paragraphs can be omitted from the directly quoted text, provided that the meaning is not changed. Three dots (…) are put in place of the removed parts. It would not be correct to write the part that is quoted from a source without enclosing it in "double quotes" and to only write the source at the end. If these rules are not followed, the author may be accused of violation of publication ethics (Plagiarism).

Section Editor Review
The study, which has passed the Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Screening phase, is examined by the relevant field editor in terms of problematic and academic language-style. This review will be completed in a maximum of 15 days.

Review Process (Academic Evaluation)
The study, which passes the review of the field editor, is submitted to the evaluation of at least two external referees who have a doctoral thesis, book or article on the subject. The arbitration process is carried out in secrecy within the framework of the double-blind arbitration practice. The referee is requested to either state his opinion and opinion on the study he has examined on the text or justify it with a minimum 150-word explanation on the online referee form. If the author does not agree with the referee's opinions, he is given the right to object and defend his opinions. Provides mutual communication between the field editor, author and referee, while maintaining confidentiality. If both referee reports are positive, the study is submitted to the Editorial Board with a proposal to evaluate its publication. If one of the two referees has a negative opinion, the study is sent to a third referee. Studies can be published with the positive decision of at least two referees. The publication of book and symposium evaluations and doctoral thesis summaries is decided upon the evaluation of at least two internal referees (relevant field editors and/or editorial board members).

Revision process
If the reviewers want revisions in the text they have reviewed, the relevant reports are sent to the author and he is asked to correct his work. The author makes the corrections with the "Track Changes" feature turned on in the Word program or indicates the changes in the text in red. Presents the revised text to the field editor.

Field Editor Control
The field editor checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.

Reviewer Control
The reviewer requesting revision checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.

Turkish Language Control
Studies that have passed the peer-review process are reviewed by the Turkish Language Editor and Editor-in-Chief, and if necessary, corrections are requested from the author. The control process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

English Language Check
Studies that pass the Turkish language control are reviewed by the English Language Editor and if necessary, corrections are requested from the author. The English language editor's control process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Publication Process
After undergoing technical, academic and linguistic reviews, the articles are typeset and edited, made ready for publication and published in the next issue. 

Data Submission to National and International Indexes
The data of the published issue is transmitted to the relevant indexes within 15 days.