Publication Ethics and Evaluation Process
The Journal of Security Strategies adopts the principle of not accepting any action, which is in conflict with scientific research and publication ethics. The Journal uses double-blind peer-review evaluation system. It is published electronically quarterly, in March, June, September, and December. The Journal does not charge any fees for published articles. The ethical principles and publication policy are written by taking into account the guidelines and policies of the Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE).
Relations with the Reviewers
For those articles passing the pre-review level, a “double-blind peer-review” process is put into order. The editors send the article in question to (at least two) peer-reviewers who are experts in the subject matter of the article. In case of an inconsistency or inadequacy occurred during the peer-review process, the editors may send the article to another peer-reviewer.
When/If the peer-reviewers or the editors request corrections on the articles, the authors are obliges to fulfil these requests. However, if the authors disagree with a certain correction request, they have a right to withdraw their articles from the evaluation process or to inform the editors on the reasons for their disagreement with the request by justifying their own opinions in within an academic framework. In such a case, the final decision is the Editorial Board taking decision in consultation with the peer-reviewer in question.
Articles, which pass the peer-reviewing process are listed according to their date of arrival and their date of acceptance and then evaluated for the final decision by the Editorial Board.
The positive result of peer-reviewing does not mean that the article will automatically be published in the Journal of Security Strategies. The final decision for the publication of the articles passing the peer-reviewing process is taken by Editorial Board. The Journal of Security Strategies is not obliged to give justification to the authors for the rejections of their articles.
Academics and experts who are invited to become a peer-reviewer for an article on behalf of the Journal of Security Strategies are expected to promptly inform the editors whether they may evaluate the article or not in the stated period of time.
Peer-reviewers who are asked to evaluate an article for the Journal shall decline the request and inform the editors so if they think that they do not considered themselves on the civilian academic and/or military technical subjects offered.
Peer-reviewers may receive assistance or advice for the article from third parties within the knowledge and approval of the Editor-in-Chief. Otherwise, they shall not share or discuss the article, which they are evaluating, with the third parties.
Peer-reviewers shall not use the article sent them to be evaluated on their behalf or in their account. They are obliged to keep the ideas, information, or data, which they come across while reviewing the article, confidential. These rules apply to the academics and experts who have declined to become peer-reviewer for the Journal.
Peer-reviewers shall take into account academic criteria in the reviewing process and they shall avoid subjective claims, accusations or implications forwarded to the authors directly. The review and evaluation shall be at a level to provide contribution to the article in question, apart from format corrections. Peer-reviewers are obliged to inform the editors on the issues in the article which collides with the “Publication Ethics” of the Journal.
The Editorial Board may reject evaluation forms, which it deems inadequate, or may ask the peer-reviewer to re-evaluate the article.
The information about the peer-reviewers are not published on the correction requests sent to the authors or in the issues of the Journal, due to the “double-blind review process”. Peer-reviewers may be presented an official document stating their contribution to the Journal upon their requests.