Grounds for Editorial Rejection
Alternatif Politika is a peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to exploring Political Science in Turkey through an interdisciplinary lens and to publishing original scholarly contributions. Guided by an editorial vision committed to engaging with current debates and literature, the journal gives priority to rigorous research offering fresh perspectives on pressing contemporary issues—such as war, poverty, migration, ecology, the global economy, international organizations, and gender. While these areas are of particular interest, we warmly welcome all original, high-quality submissions that place Political Science at their core.
However, given that a considerable number of recent submissions from our valued authors have been rejected at the editorial stage, we have deemed it useful to explain the reasons for these decisions within the framework of the points outlined below.
#1: Lack of originality in the topic. For example: "Marxist and Liberal Perspectives on Nationalism". As you will appreciate, an extensive body of literature already exists on this subject.
#2: Topic being overly localized and offering no projection for future research. For example: "An Analysis of the Political Tendencies of University Students in the Province of Bursa".
#3: Excessive specificity of the topic. For example: an analysis of the films of a director known only to a small, specialized audience.
#4: Absence of a theoretical or conceptual framework underpinning the work.
#5: Insufficient time dedicated to writing, resulting in a hastily produced and poorly structured manuscript.
#6: Lack of a central, original argument, or presenting such an argument without engaging in a thorough literature review.
#7: Overly descriptive writing, with little or no critical dialogue with the relevant literature.
#8: Limited and/or inappropriate use of sources, including failure to engage with the key literature relevant to the topic.
#9: Failure to employ a research method or technique, despite the topic requiring one.
#10: Use of an unnecessarily convoluted style rather than clear and accessible language, often accompanied by numerous grammatical or typographical errors.
#11: Submission not being an academic article, but instead resembling a policy document or report.
#12: Detection of plagiarism and/or other academic ethics violations.