Open Access
Authors preparing manuscripts for the Politics Quarterly (PQ) must adhere closely to these instructions to ensure an efficient and quick review process.
Manuscript Types and General Preparation
PQ publishes Original and Review articles. PQ particularly welcomes theoretical articles that introduce or present new scientific theories, as well as scholarly critiques and reviews of existing theories by distinguished professors and experts.
Required Files for Submission
Five essential files must be uploaded through the online submission system:
Manuscript Structure and Formatting
The title page must be submitted as a separate file and contain the following identifying information:
The Abstract should be factual and concise, not exceeding 200 words. It must summarize the research purpose, principal results, and major conclusions (read more about a standard abstract: https://www.niso.org/publications/ansiniso-z3914-1997-r2015-guidelines-abstracts). Furthermore, authors have to submit the extended English abstract, not exceeding 800 words.
The manuscript should be divided into clearly defined and numbered sections (e.g., 1, 2, 3) and subsections (1.1, 1.1.1, etc.). Generally, journal articles have the following structure, however, it's not required for authors to structure their contribution based on this recommended sections.
All visual and tabular elements must be supplied correctly and cited sequentially in the text.
PQ mandates the use of the APA referencing style (see examples: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references/examples). Authors are referred to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (Seventh Edition, 2020, https://apastyle.apa.org) for specific details.
Supplementary material (SI) is content that enhances the research but is not essential for understanding the main conclusions (e.g., extended data sets, video, detailed methods, appendices).
Common Technical Errors and Important Notes
Authorship carries significant responsibility, accountability, and legal implications for the integrity of the published academic record. PQ adheres to internationally recognized guidelines (such as those of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, ICMJE, which emphasize contributor roles [https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html]) to define appropriate authorship.
Authorship Criteria
All individuals listed as authors must meet the criteria below, demonstrating intellectual involvement in the research:
Exclusions from Authorship: Individuals who provided support but did not meet all four criteria above should be listed in the Acknowledgements section only. Examples of non-author contributions include language editing, providing resources, or general assistance. The practice of excluding individuals who made substantive contributions ("ghost writing") is prohibited.
PQ adopts rigorous policies regarding the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies ("AI Tools") in manuscript preparation, focusing on ensuring human accountability, critical oversight, and transparency.
AI and Authorship
AI Tools cannot be listed as an author or co-author on a manuscript. Authorship carries responsibilities for the integrity and validity of the published work that can only be fulfilled by humans, who must be able to approve the final version and agree to its submission.
Permitted Uses (AI-Assisted Copy-Editing)
The use of AI Tools is permitted to support authors in improving their existing work, provided it is used responsibly and with human oversight.
Prohibited Uses (AI-Driven Content Creation)
AI Tools must not be used to create or draft original content (copywriting) or replace human critical thinking.
Disclosure Requirement
Authors must declare the use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies used in the manuscript preparation process upon submission.
This disclosure must be added in a separate declaration statement at the end of the manuscript (before the reference list) when the paper is first submitted. The statement should include:
(Note: Basic tools checking grammar, spelling, or references, which do not use generative AI, generally do not require this declaration.)
AI Use in Peer Review (Reviewers and Editors)
For the protection of author confidentiality and the integrity of the peer review process, reviewers and editors are explicitly prohibited from uploading submitted manuscripts or any part of them into a generative AI tool or Large Language Model (LLM) for evaluation or assessment. Generative AI tools should not be used by editors or reviewers to assist in the scientific evaluation or decision-making process, as human critical thinking and expertise are irreplaceable.
If a reviewer uses a generative AI tool solely for copy-editing and improving the quality of the language in their review report, they must declare this usage transparently to the editorial team, remaining responsible and accountable for the report's accuracy.
PQ encourages authors to maintain the highest levels of transparency and rigor regarding the data that supports their research findings.
Data Availability and Transparency
Research Data Definition: Research data includes the results of observations or experimentation that validate research findings. This can encompass raw data, processed data, software, algorithms, code, models, protocols, and other useful materials related to the project.
Data Sharing Encouragement: Authors are strongly encouraged to deposit their research data in a relevant data repository, such as Mendeley Data, Dryad, Figshare, Open Science Framework, Zenodo, UK Data Service ReShare, OpenICPSR, or Qualitative Data Repository.
Role of the Corresponding Author
At least, one author is designated as the Corresponding Author, acting as the primary representative for the co-author group. This author ensures that all communication with the journal is managed effectively throughout the refereeing and publication process, and handles subsequent post-publication queries.
Key responsibilities include:
To promote transparency, authors are encouraged to specify the contribution of every author using the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) methodology (https://credit.niso.org). This taxonomy provides a standardized way to describe the diverse efforts involved in producing scholarly work.
CRediT Roles (Examples):
The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring the description of roles is accurate and agreed upon by all contributors. PQ encourages the inclusion of an Author Contribution statement in the published paper.
Changes to Authorship
It is essential that authors establish the definitive author list, including the order, at the time of original submission. PQ generally will not consider changes to authorship once a manuscript has been submitted.
Any request for the addition, deletion, or rearrangement of author names must be approved by the journal editor and should ideally occur prior to acceptance.
Procedure for Change Requests: The corresponding author must submit the request (https://zenodo.org/records/17750189/files/Authorship_Change_Request_Form.docx?download=1) to the journal editor, providing detailed reasons for the change. This request must include written confirmation from all authors—including those being added or removed—that they agree with the proposed modification. Only in exceptional circumstances will the editor consider changes post-acceptance.
Consequences: The journal may pause the publication process while considering an authorship change request. Any unauthorized authorship changes may result in the rejection of the article or, if already published, a retraction. If an approved change occurs post-publication, a formal corrigendum will be issued.
Authorship Disputes: In the event of an authorship dispute during the peer review or after publication, the journal will not adjudicate. Authors will be asked to resolve the dispute internally. If they fail to do so, the journal may withdraw the manuscript or raise the issue with the authors’ institution(s).
PQ, guided by the principles of COPE (https://publicationethics.org), is committed to maintaining the integrity of the published scholarly record. When errors or misconduct are discovered, corrective measures are taken to inform readers accurately.
Corrections (Corrigenda and Errata)
Minor Errors: Errors that affect the accuracy of the article but do not substantially invalidate the conclusions will typically be addressed via the publication of a Correction (or Erratum). The author has an obligation to promptly notify the editor or publisher upon discovering a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work and cooperate in correcting the paper.
Authorship Changes: The addition, deletion, or rearrangement of authors post-submission requires formal submission of the Post-Submission Authorship Amendment Form (https://zenodo.org/records/17750189/files/Authorship_Change_Request_Form.docx?download=1) and explicit written approval from all authors and the journal editor. After acceptance, minor corrections in authorship (e.g., spelling) may be addressed. However, the addition, deletion, or rearrangement of authors post-acceptance or post-publication is only considered in exceptional circumstances and generally requires approval from all authors and the journal editor. Unauthorized changes may result in rejection or retraction.
Retractions
Substantial Errors or Misconduct: An article may be retracted on the rare occasion that the interpretation or conclusion of the article is substantially undermined due to major errors (which might include fraud, falsification, or fabrication of data). The editorial decision to retract is based on the reliability of the article.
Retraction Procedure: A Retraction Note is published online, which is bidirectionally linked to the original article. The original article remains online but is typically watermarked “Retracted article,” and the retraction note provides the reason for the action. In severe cases, particularly concerning confirmed misconduct, the author's institution may be informed. The journal follows COPE's retraction guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/retraction-guidelines).
Expressions of Concern
An Editorial Expression of Concern (EEoC) is a statement issued by the editors to alert readers to serious concerns affecting the integrity of a published paper, especially if a lengthy research integrity investigation is underway. EEoCs are published and indexed, and they often serve as an interim measure until the investigation is complete, possibly leading to a Correction or Retraction.
Removal of Content
In exceptional circumstances—such as if content is determined to be defamatory, infringes upon intellectual property or legal rights, or poses an immediate and serious risk to health—PQ reserves the right to temporarily or permanently remove the article from its online platforms.
PQ provides clear mechanisms for authors to appeal editorial decisions or to file complaints regarding journal policies or conduct, adhering to COPE guidelines (https://publicationethics.org) and ensuring a fair and transparent process.
Appeals Against Editorial Decisions
Procedure: Authors have the right to submit a formal appeal request against an editorial decision (e.g., rejection). The request must meet all journal requirements and follow the defined procedure.
Review of Appeal: The editor considers the author’s arguments, taking into account the initial reviewer reports. The appeal may result in the decision standing, a need for a new independent opinion, or the appeal being considered favorably.
Limitation: Generally, only one appeal per submission will be considered, and the appeal decision rendered is typically final. Authors should not resubmit the manuscript while an appeal is pending.
Complaints Regarding Process or Ethics
Complaints concern issues that are non-editorial (e.g., long delays in handling a paper, or concerns about ethical conduct of staff, authors, or reviewers).
Process Complaints: For issues like processing delays, the Editor-in-Chief, potentially with the help of the handling editor or publisher staff, will investigate the matter and provide appropriate feedback to the complainant. Steps will be taken to improve processes and procedures based on the findings.
Ethics Complaints: For complaints about potential publication or research misconduct (e.g., researcher’s or reviewer’s conduct), the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor will investigate the matter following COPE guidelines and processes (https://publicationethics.org). The complainant will receive feedback regarding the course of action. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, they may submit the complaint to COPE itself. The journal ensures that investigations are objective, evidence-based, and that all parties are given a right to reply.
Transparency regarding interests that could influence or bias research is a foundational ethical requirement in scholarly publishing. PQ requires disclosure from all parties involved: authors, editors, and reviewers.
Author Disclosure Requirements
All authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could potentially influence or bias their work (Competing Interests/Conflicts of Interest). This applies to interests present within the last three years of beginning the research and preparation of the manuscript, as well as any interests outside that timeframe that could still be reasonably perceived as influencing the work. Authors are required to refer to and complete the official Declaration of Competing Interests Form (https://zenodo.org/records/17764062/files/Declaration_Competing_Interests_Form.docx?download=1) and submit it concurrently with their manuscript submission.