Question 1

Who is the medical reviewer for DeepPlane.com?

Accepted Answer

Dr. Yakup Duman, MD is the primary medical reviewer for DeepPlane.com. He is a board-certified Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery Specialist based in Istanbul, Turkey, with over 13 years of experience performing deep plane facelifts.

Question 2

What are Dr. Yakup Duman's qualifications?

Accepted Answer

Dr. Yakup Duman holds an MD from Istanbul University Faculty of Medicine and is board-certified in Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. He is an active member of the Turkish Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery Association and specializes in deep plane facelift, rhinoplasty, neck lift, and blepharoplasty.

Question 3

How does the medical review process work on DeepPlane.com?

Accepted Answer

Every educational article on DeepPlane.com is reviewed by Dr. Duman or a member of the medical advisory board before publication. Reviews include verifying procedural accuracy, checking cited research, and confirming that patient-facing claims reflect current clinical consensus. Content is audited and updated at least quarterly.

Question 4

Is Dr. Yakup Duman affiliated with DeepPlane.com commercially?

Accepted Answer

Dr. Duman serves as medical reviewer in an editorial capacity. His role is to ensure factual accuracy and clinical credibility of the site's content. He maintains an independent clinical practice at Merkez Prime Hospital, Istanbul.

Question 5

What counts as a 'medical review' on DeepPlane.com — is it a rubber stamp?

Accepted Answer

No. A review on DeepPlane.com is a documented three-step pass by Dr. Duman or a medical advisory board member. Step 1: factual pass — each clinical claim is checked against a current citation from a MEDRS-grade source (peer-reviewed journal, StatPearls, WHO, FDA, CDC). Step 2: nuance pass — hedged language ("most patients," "studies suggest") replaces marketing absolutes. Step 3: currency pass — numbers older than 24 months get flagged for update and any guideline change in the past 12 months triggers a content refresh. Articles without the three-step sign-off don't ship. Each published page carries a `lastReviewed` date and the reviewer's name in the byline, both in the rendered HTML and the JSON-LD structured data.

Question 6

How often does the medical reviewer update published content?

Accepted Answer

Every published learn page is reviewed on a 90-day rolling cycle. Priority triggers that override the cycle and force an immediate re-review include: (1) a new systematic review or meta-analysis on the page's topic, (2) an FDA label change or safety alert relevant to a named procedure or device, (3) a major guideline update from ASPS, ISAPS, or AAFPRS, and (4) flagged user feedback indicating a specific factual error. The public-facing `dateModified` + `lastReviewed` timestamps are updated on every touch, and the full change log is available on request to research@deepplane.com for researchers verifying content provenance.

Question 7

Can I request a medical review of a specific surgeon's work or an outside article?

Accepted Answer

The medical reviewer's role is limited to DeepPlane.com's own content and the factual accuracy of material we publish. Individual surgeon evaluations, revision consults, or second-opinion reviews of outside surgery fall outside the editorial scope — those require a clinical relationship with Dr. Duman directly, which patients can arrange through his independent practice contact. For journalists or researchers fact-checking a specific claim we've published, email research@deepplane.com with the exact sentence + page URL and we respond in 3 business days with the source citation or a correction.

Question 8

What happens when the medical reviewer disagrees with a draft article — does the writer just override it?

Accepted Answer

No. The reviewer's sign-off is the publication gate, not a courtesy step. When a draft and the reviewer disagree, three things happen in order: (1) the writer produces a written response addressing each flagged issue with citations to peer-reviewed literature; (2) if disagreement persists, a third party — usually a second board-certified facial-plastic surgeon outside the DeepPlane team — adjudicates by reading the draft, the response, and the underlying source. (3) The article does NOT publish until consensus is reached or the disputed claim is rewritten with a clear hedge ('some surgeons report X; others find Y'). In the 14 months since this process formalized, ~6% of drafts have hit a reviewer-writer disagreement. Two articles were withheld entirely. The full editorial-review log is available to journalists on request through research@deepplane.com so the no-rubber-stamp policy is auditable, not just claimed.

Question 9

Why do you only have one named medical reviewer instead of a panel?

Accepted Answer

Currently a single named reviewer (Dr. Yakup Duman) signs off on all clinical content because that's where the platform is in its lifecycle: small enough that the founder is closely involved, large enough that we needed a credentialed reviewer of record. The single-reviewer model has known costs — bottleneck risk if he's traveling, blind spots in subspecialties he doesn't personally practice, less discipline diversity than a 5-reviewer panel. We mitigate by (a) commissioning external second-reads on revision-facelift, ethnic-rhinoplasty, and trans-related content where Dr. Duman explicitly notes lower personal volume; (b) publishing the reviewer's name + credentials transparently on every article so patients can verify the qualification themselves; (c) keeping the bar at 'one surgeon experienced enough to credibly sign their name to it' rather than the false-comfort of 'three signatures, none accountable'. The medical-review panel will expand to 3-4 named reviewers once content volume justifies it, planned 2026-Q3. Recruitment criteria + governance for the expanded panel are published on /methodology.

Question 10

How does DeepPlane.com handle a conflict of interest when the medical reviewer's own specialty is featured in the content?

Accepted Answer

Every medical reviewer on DeepPlane.com — currently Dr. Yakup Duman — signs a conflict-of-interest disclosure at engagement that is republished verbatim on each article they review. When a content piece concerns a technique, device, or clinical approach the reviewer personally uses, three guardrails apply: (1) the reviewer's own profile on DeepPlane.com is explicitly excluded from any ranking or surgeon-of-the-week feature tied to the article's topic, so reviewing an article on deep plane facelift never nudges their own profile's exposure; (2) the article's disclosure footer states the reviewer's own practice in that area (e.g., 'reviewer performs the technique described; this review does not constitute an endorsement of any specific surgeon on the platform'); (3) for head-to-head comparison articles where the reviewer's preferred technique is one side of the comparison, an external second-reviewer — a board-certified facial-plastic surgeon not otherwise associated with DeepPlane — is commissioned to sign off independently, and both signatures appear on the published page. The full conflict-of-interest register is updated annually and viewable at /transparency/coi-register.

Question 11

Who supervises the medical reviewer — can a reviewer be removed, and what would trigger that?

Accepted Answer

Medical-reviewer oversight on DeepPlane.com runs through the external editorial ombudsperson — a board-certified plastic surgeon with no commercial relationship to the platform, whose annual review of reviewer conduct is published at /transparency/ombudsperson-review/. A reviewer can be removed, mid-term, for any of six specific triggers: (1) loss of active board certification or medical license in their practice jurisdiction; (2) a substantiated disciplinary action from a national board; (3) demonstrable factual error in signed-off content that the reviewer refuses to correct on evidentiary request; (4) a breach of the conflict-of-interest policy (accepting payment from a surgeon or clinic on the platform, for example); (5) failure to turn in reviews within the contracted 5-business-day window on a sustained basis, blocking editorial throughput; (6) the reviewer's written request to step down. Triggers (1), (2), (4), and the written step-down path are escalated to the ombudsperson for a 48-hour review + public disclosure on the transparency page before the reviewer's name is removed from active articles. Historical review signatures on articles reviewed before removal are not retroactively redacted — the record of who approved what, when, is preserved as part of the audit trail.

Dr. Yakup Duman, MD

Professional Background

Qualifications & Training

Editorial Standards

Areas of Expertise

Frequently Asked Questions

Editorial Sources

Key Facts

Related Topics

Explore Further