Peer Review Process

Those who wish to submit manuscripts to Publicus – Journal of Public Administration Research may register at https://publicus.kamuyonetimi.org.tr/  and submit their work using the template available on the website. All correspondence concerning submission, review, and decision processes, as well as communication between journal officers, authors, and reviewers, is conducted and archived through the online journal system and the Journal’s email address. Upon request from indexing bodies and institutions regulating ethical principles, archived information and documents are openly shared with the relevant institutions. Authors acknowledge that the types of manuscripts specified in the “Writing and Referencing Guidelines” are subject to peer review. Submissions must conform to one of the article types published in the journal, and the manuscript type must be specified during submission.

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal undergo a preliminary evaluation by the Editorial Board to determine their suitability for publication. For manuscripts deemed appropriate by the Editorial Board, members of the Editorial Board prepare a Preliminary Evaluation Form. The form is prepared by a single member and communicated to the author. The Preliminary Evaluation stage involves checking compliance with the “Writing and Referencing Guidelines,” verifying the similarity report, presenting reviewer suggestions, and preparing the manuscript for peer review. This stage operates under an Open Author / Single-Blind Reviewer model. In accordance with the principles of impartiality and neutrality, the identity of the member conducting the evaluation is kept confidential and the anonymity of the decision is preserved. When necessary, the Editorial Board deliberates collectively and reaches a decision.

Manuscripts found unsuitable at the preliminary stage due to issues related to scope, purpose, or formatting rules may be returned to the author for revision by decision of the Editorial Board or may be rejected outright. For manuscripts accepted and prepared for publication, a final reading is conducted by the Editors and, when necessary, members of the Editorial Board. During this stage, Turkish and English language editors also perform copyediting. The “Aim and Scope” and the “Writing and Referencing Guidelines” constitute the basis of this process. Minor editorial revisions that do not alter the substantive content of the manuscript are made directly; changes affecting substantive content are made with the author’s approval. The final version prepared for publication is shared with the author once more before being sent to typesetting. The Editorial Board is responsible for managing the peer review process. It evaluates whether submitted manuscripts comply with the general publication principles specified in the Journal’s “Aim and Scope” and “Publication Principles and Processes.” When necessary, the process is advanced in consultation with the relevant member of the Editorial Board. Decisions based on peer review reports must comply with formal requirements. At this stage, the Board may not make content-specific evaluations. Additional reviewer reports may be sought to reach a decision. The final decision is shared with the Editorial Board. Decisions are made solely on the basis of scientific validity, originality, and contribution to the field. The author’s identity, academic title, institution, or social status cannot influence the decision-making process.

“Research” and “Review” articles are classified as original scholarly articles. After the preliminary evaluation by the Editorial Board, these manuscripts are sent for peer review in accordance with double-blind principles and are evaluated by at least two reviewers. Reviewers assess these manuscripts using a review form specifically prepared for these two article types. “Book Review” submissions are also subject to peer review; however, they are evaluated by two reviewers using a separate review form specific to book reviews. Opinion pieces, interviews, reports, roundtable discussions, letters to the editor, responses, corrections, and obituary texts are published upon preliminary evaluation and decision by the Editorial Board.

The use of language that is belittling, degrading, sarcastic, or offensive toward the work or the individual in review reports, editor letters, or author responses is prohibited. Criticism must be directed solely at the scientific content, methodology, and data—not at the person. The use of revision processes by reviewers or editors as a means of exerting pressure on authors, or the making of unreasonable, excessive, and persistent demands beyond scientific boundaries, is considered “academic mobbing.” Reviewers are expected to use constructive language that encourages authors to improve their manuscripts. Instead of abstract or judgmental statements, they should provide concrete, evidence-based, constructive, and instructive explanations indicating the source of any deficiencies.

All information and documents related to the evaluation process are confidential. Reviewers may not use authors’ ideas, data, or publications for personal benefit, nor may they share them in any manner. Furthermore, any use of artificial intelligence that would compromise confidentiality and impartiality is prohibited. Reviewers may not upload manuscripts under review, in whole or in part, to artificial intelligence tools or applications. The “Confidentiality and Ethical Commitment for Reviewers” governs such matters. Reviewers are obliged to complete and submit this commitment form to the journal.

Any academic, institutional, financial, or personal conflict of interest that may compromise the scientific impartiality of the journal or the manuscript must be disclosed to the journal. In cases that may constitute a conflict of interest, an explicit declaration is required.

During the evaluation and publication stages, authors are required to declare all previous versions of the work that have been published, presented, or submitted in another format (e.g., thesis, conference paper), and to specify how the new manuscript differs from those versions. These declarations must be included in a footnote in the introduction of the manuscript. In addition, in accordance with COPE and national regulations, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism must be avoided; all sources used must be fully cited, and unused sources must not be included in the text. For field research, where required, Ethics Committee approval (including committee name, date, and number) and institutional research permission must be obtained.

Publicus – Journal of Public Administration Research does not prohibit the use of artificial intelligence; however, it regulates such use under specific principles. To ensure the visibility of original added value, a declaration of AI use is required. The use of artificial intelligence tools must be clearly stated in accordance with the principles set forth in the Journal’s “Generative Artificial Intelligence Usage Declaration Form for Authors.” The “Author Declaration” at the end of the manuscript must explicitly include all statements specified under the above headings.