International Journal of Politics and Security

Time table for IJPS Review Process

PEER-REVIEW POLICY AND PROCESS OF MANUSCRIPTS 

1. Uploading the Manuscripts
The author (or the corresponding author ¬in case of multiple authors) submits the manuscript to the journal system and as a part of the uploading-process s/he provides the required information about the author(s). The manuscripts should be uploaded via no other way than the Manuscript Tracking System, which can be accessed through the Article Submission button in the menu.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment
The Editorial Board checks whether the manuscript is technically suitable for publication in terms of the instructions given in the Author Guidelines section before assigning any referees. At this step, the manuscripts are assessed not by their content, but rather by their textual organization, style, grammar use, etc.

3. Assessment of the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)
The EIC checks whether the manuscript satisfies the general policy of the journal, and evaluates the authenticity of the content and the originality of the topic within the field. The EIC reserves the right to terminate the review process at any step and to decline the manuscript.

4. Invitation to Referees
The EIC sends invitations to referees under their field of expertise to review the manuscripts which are evaluated to be eligible in the Editorial Assessment process. As a general policy, at least two referees are assigned to each manuscript. However, the EIC may invite more referees if there are any controversial decisions about the paper. All the manuscripts must receive positive reports and approval for publication from at least two referees.

5. Responses to the Invitation
The invited referees are free to accept or decline the invitations considering their field of expertise and personal workload. However, the referees who refuse the invitation are kindly asked for their recommendations regarding the possible competent referees.

6. Review Process
The review process consists of two stages: scanning and detailed analysis. The referee may disapprove of the manuscript at the initial stage if there are major problems with the content or with the presentation of the academic views. If at the end of the scanning process, the decision of the referee about the manuscript turns out to be positive, the referee proceeds to the second stage and starts reviewing the manuscript attentively. Each referee is expected to share his/her academic opinion by providing notes for the author. Once the reviewing process is complete, the referee sends his/her report to the editorial board with a recommendation either (1) to accept or (2) to reject the manuscript or else (3) to request the author to make some revisions on the manuscript for re-consideration.

7. Final Assessment by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)
The EIC takes all the reviews of the referees into account to make a final decision. If the overall assessments of the referees differ radically, the EIC may invite an additional referee for one last assessment to make the final decision.

8. Informing the Author about the Decision of EIC
The EIC sends an email to the author informing him/her about the final decision regarding the manuscript. The EIC also delivers the author all the referee reports and comments on the manuscript. As an ethical and academic requirement of the double-blind review process, the identity of referees is never shared with the author(s).

9. Further Steps
If the manuscript is decided to be published at the end of the steps so far, the editorial board prepares it for publication. If the manuscript is sent back to the author for further revision, the EIC delivers the referee reports to the author(s), (the reports are shared in cases of rejection as well). When the author(s) are asked for further revision, referees expect the revised version of the manuscript to be uploaded as soon as possible to avoid any delay in the publication process. After re-assessment, the recommendation of the referees may be either (1) to accept or (2) to reject the publication of the manuscript. If only minor revisions are asked from the authors, the EIC mostly does not ask the referees to re-assess the revised manuscript. At this step, the EIC holds the right to/not to decide to publish the final and revised version of the manuscript.

10. Publication Fee
No publication fee is demanded from authors for the assessment process or publication. 

In the process of publishing, all involved parties (authors, editors, peer reviewers, publishers) must agree on the standards of expected ethical behavior. The ethics statements for our journal are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

1. Duties of the Editors-in-Chief
Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to authors’ race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, citizenship, or political views.
Confidentiality
The Editors-in-Chief and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an Editor’s research without the explicit written consent of the author(s).
Publication Decisions
The Editors-in-Chief of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the submitted manuscripts should be published. The Editors-in-Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal’s Editorial Board and constrained by such legal requirements as may then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editors-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making decisions.

2. Duties of Peer Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the Editors-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Promptness
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the Editors-in-Chief so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others, except if authorized by the Editors-in-Chief.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any observation, derivation, or argument that has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts for which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

3. Duties of Authors
Reporting Standards
Authors reporting results of original work should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original work, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this must be appropriately cited or quoted. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications
An author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Authorship of a Manuscript
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the work, they should be named in an Acknowledgments section.
The Corresponding Author
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Human or Animal Subjects
Any work involving human or animal subjects should indicate whether the procedures followed were following the ethical standards of the relevant institutional committee(s).
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation of the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Completion of the Revision Process
After a manuscript has been accepted for publication, i.e., after referee-recommended revisions have been completed, the author will not be permitted to make changes that constitute departures from the manuscript that was accepted by the editor. Before publication, galley proofs are always sent to authors for corrections. Authors are responsible for proofreading and checking the entire galley proof within XX days. Failure to return the proof in XX days may delay publication. Mistakes or omissions that occur due to some negligence on the part of the journal during final printing will be rectified in an erratum in a later issue. This does not include errors left uncorrected by the author in the galley proof.
Fundamental Errors in Published Works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, the author must promptly notify the Editors-in-Chief or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate corrigendum.

4. Publisher’s Confirmation
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the Editors-in-Chief, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of a corrigendum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the work in question.

NOTE: This section, which contains the principles of the journal on ethics of publication, has been arranged by using the relevant internet text of Elsevier publishing. https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/publishing-ethics. 

1.  Copyright Transfer Form

2.  Ethic Checklist for Author

3. Checklist for Referee

“Ethics Committee Permission” is required for studies to be published backdate to 2020 in line with the decisions by ULAKBİM TR Index. Studies requiring “Ethics Committee Permission” are listed below. When uploading your study to our journal, you must upload your Ethics Committee document along with your article file. If your study is not included in the study group that requires ethics committee approval, you should indicate the relevant situation in your article text.

Please send your articles according to the following items:
1. “Ethics Committee Permission” is required for all kinds of research conducted with qualitative or quantitative approaches that indicate data collection from participants by using questionnaires, interviews, focus group work, observation, experimentation, and interview techniques.
2. The articles should indicate whether the ethics committee approval and/or legal/special permission is required. If these permissions are required, it should be clearly indicated from which institution, on what date and with what decision or issue number.
3. “Ethics Committee Permission” is required for research using humans and animals (including material/data) for experimental or other scientific purposes.
4. If the study requires the use of human or animal subjects, it should be declared that the study is appropriate with international declarations, or guides etc. (if existing).
5. “Ethics Committee Permission” is required for clinical trials on humans and research on animals.
6. In accordance with the law on the protection of personal data, “Ethics Committee Permission” is required for retrospective studies.
7. Permission must be obtained from the owners for the use of scales, questionnaires and photographs belonging to others, and this should be stated in the article.
8. In case reports, it should be stated that “Informed Consent Form” was received.
9. It should be stated that the copyright regulations are complied for the intellectual and artistic works that are used.


NOTE:

-Researchers who are not members of a university can also apply to the “Ethics Committees” in their regions.