EGO-LED AND ALTER-LED SIMULATIONS IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING

Cansu Paslıoğlu

doi:10.54472/jobig.1978384

TR EN

DIŞ POLİTİKA KARAR ALMA SÜREÇLERİNDE EGO-LED VE ALTER-LED SİMÜLASYONLAR

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Uluslararası İlişkiler (Uİ) literatüründe yaygın biçimde kullanılan simülasyonların tek bir kategoriymiş gibi ele alınması yaklaşımını sorgulamakta ve simülasyonların işlevinin onları tasarlayan üreticiler tarafından belirlendiğini ileri sürmektedir. Makale, bu amaçla iki temel kavramsal kategori geliştirmektedir: EGO-led ve ALTER-led simülasyonlar. EGO-led simülasyonlar, devlet kurumlarının halihazırda verdiği stratejik kararların operasyonel uygulanabilirliğini test etmeyi amaçlarken; ALTER-led simülasyonlar karar verilmeden önce seçenek üreten, belirsizliği kavramsallaştıran ve problem çerçevesini şekillendiren araçlar olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Çalışma, bu kavramsal ayrımı ampirik olarak görünür kılmak için ABD’nin iki önemli kurumsal simülasyon ekolü olan Naval War College (NWC) ve RAND Corporation üzerinde karşılaştırmalı bir analiz gerçekleştirmiştir. Bulgular, NWC’nin simülasyonlarının uygulama optimizasyonuna odaklanan EGO-led niteliğini; RAND’ın ise stratejik keşif, yeni politika seçenekleri üretimi ve problem tanımlama kapasitesiyle ALTER-led simülasyonların tipik örneğini oluşturduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çalışma, simülasyonların kurumsal üretici mantığına göre sınıflandırılması gerektiğini ortaya koyarak literatürdeki önemli bir boşluğu doldurmakta; simülasyon araştırmalarını dış politika karar alma süreçleriyle bütünleştiren özgün bir kavramsal çerçeve sunmaktadır.

Keywords

EGO-LED AND ALTER-LED SIMULATIONS IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING

Abstract

This study challenges the prevailing assumption in the International Relations (IR) literature that simulations constitute a single, uniform category, and argues instead that their function is determined by the institutional actor that designs and conducts them. To this end, the article develops two conceptual categories: EGO-led and ALTER-led simulations. EGO-led simulations are employed by state institutions to test the operational feasibility of strategic decisions that have already been made, whereas ALTER-led simulations operate prior to decision-making, generating policy options, framing uncertainty, and shaping the cognitive boundaries within which decisions are taken. To demonstrate this distinction empirically, the study conducts a comparative analysis of two of the United States’ most established simulation traditions: the Naval War College (NWC) and the RAND Corporation. The findings show that NWC simulations focus on execution optimization and reflect the core characteristics of EGO-led design, while RAND simulations exemplify ALTER-led functions by producing new strategic pathways, reframing problems, and expanding decision-makers option sets. By classifying simulations according to institutional production logic rather than technical features, this study fills a significant gap in the literature and offers an original conceptual framework that integrates simulation research with foreign policy decision-making processes.

Keywords

References

Allen, P. D. (1986). The Pace of War in Gaming, Simulation, Doctrine, and War. RAND Corporation.
Allison, G. T. (1969). Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis. American Political Science Review, 63(3): 689–718.
Allison, G. T. (1972). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Allison, G. T. and Halperin, M. (1972). Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications. World Politics, 24, 40-79.
Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (2nd Ed.). Longman.
Antunes, L., Respicio, A. and Balsa, J. (2008). Policy Decision Support Through Social Simulation. Encyclopedia of Decision Making and Decision Support Technologies, 1(2): 716–723.
Angelini, M. L., (2021). Learning through Simulations: Ideas for Educational Practitioners. Cham: Springer Nature.
Arts, B., and Verschuren, P. (1999). Assessing political influence in complex decision-making: An instrument based on triangulation. International Political Science Review, 20(4), 411–424

Bae, S. J., (2020). How Can Wargaming Improve Government Response to Catastrophic Events?. RAND Corporation.
Bartels, E. M., vd., (2023). Insights from the Plan Blue 21 Game: Examining the Role of Sensing and Partner and Allied Contributions to Competition with Russia in the Arctic. RAND Corporation.
Beckner, L. R., (2012). Decision Making During National Security Crisis: The Case of the JFK Administration. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech.
Berbrick, W. and Marrin, D., (2014). Global Title X Series ’13: Game Report. U.S. Naval War College.
Becker, H. (1983). Scenarios: A Tool of Growing Importance to Policy Analysts in Government and Industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 23(2): 95–120.
Biglaiser, G., and DeRouen K. Jr. (2004). The expansion of neoliberal economic reforms in Latin America. International Studies Quarterly 48(3): 561-578.
Bridge, D. and Radford, S., (2014). Teaching Diplomacy by Other Means: Using an Outside-of-Class Simulation to Teach International Relations Theory. International Studies Perspectives, 15: 423-437.
Bueno de Mesquita, B. and Lalman D., (2008). War and Reason: Domestic and International Imperatives. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Butcher, C., (2012). Teaching foreign policy decision-making processes using role-playing simulations: The case of US-Iranian relations. International Studies Perspectives, 13(2): 176-194.
Burke, S., Marrin, D., Wiggins, W., & Meagher, D. (2013). Naval Mine & Anti-Submarine Warfare Command Game ’13. Naval War College.
Caffrey, M., (2019). On wargaming: How wargames have shaped history and how they may shape the future (Vol. 43). Naval War College Press.
Chasek, P., (2005). Power Politics, Diplomacy and Role Playing: Simulating the UN Security Council’s Response to Terrorism. International Studies Perspectives, 6(1): 1-19.
DellaVolpe, D., Brightman, H., Ducharme, D., & Bergey, L. (2010). Navy Irregular Challenges Game ’10. Naval War College, Game Reports.
DiCicco, J., M. (2014). National Security Council: Simulating Decision-Making Dilemmas in Real Time. International Studies Perspectives, 15(4): 438-458.
Ducharme, D. and Brightman, H., (2010). Global Shipping Game - 10. Naval War College, Game Reports.
Ducharme, D. and Brightman, H., (2011). Maritime Stability Operations Game ’11. Naval War College, Game Reports.
Dolin, E. J. and Susskind, L. (1992). A Role for Simulations in Public Policy Disputes: The Case of National Energy Policy. Simulation & Gaming, 23(1): 20-44.
Even, S., (2018). The Intelligence Assessment and the Art of Preventing War. Institute for National Security Studies.
Farnham, B., (1992). Roosevelt and the Munich Crisis: Insights from Prospect Theory. Political Psychology, 13(2): 205-235.
Fearon, J. D. (1995). Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization, 49(3): 379-414.
Feldman, M. S. (1989), Order without Design: Information Production and Policy Making. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gray, C., Bergey, L., and Berbrick, W., (2011). Fleet Arctic Operations Game. Naval War College, Game Reports.
Greasley, A., (2019). Simulating Business Processes for Descriptive, Predictive, and Prescriptive Analytics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Guidara, A., (2021). Policy Decision Modeling with Fuzzy Logic: Theoretical and Computational Aspects. Cham: Springer Nature. Harrigan, P., and Kirschenbaum, M. G., (Eds.). (2016). Zones of control: Perspectives on wargaming. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10329.001.0001
Hart, P., (1994). Groupthink in Government: A Study of Small Groups and Policy Failure. Johns Hopkins University Press
Hermann, C. F. (1965). Crises in Foreign Policy Making: A Simulation of International Politics. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Houghton, D. P., and Mendez, A., (2023). Visceral Politics and Its Impact on US Foreign Policy Decision-Making. Foreign Policy Analysis, 19(1): orac025.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Janssen, M., and Wimmer, M. A., (2015). Introduction to Policy-Making in the Digital Age. Policy Practice and Digital Science: Integrating Complex Systems, Social Simulation and Public Administration in Policy Research. 1-14. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Jensen, B. Valeriano, B., (2019). What Do We Know about Cyber Escalation?: Observations from Simulations and Surveys. Atlantic Council.
Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security (2018). https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/tabletop-exercises/clade-x-tabletop-exercise (12.11.2025).
Johnson, D., Wilson, P., Darile, R., and Zeman, L. L. (2006). Joint Paths to the Future Force: A Report on Unified Quest 2004. RAND Corporation.
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A., (2013). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making, 99-127
Keller, J. W., Yang, Y., and James, P., (2022). Decision-making in US foreign policy crises: Presidential leadership and outcomes. Political Research Quarterly 75(3):562-575.
Kellogg, H. R., vd., (2012). Naval Services Game ’12”, Naval War College. Game Reports.
Kellogg, H. R., vd., (2013). Naval Services Game ’13: Game Report”, Naval War College, Game Reports.
Kelton, M. and Kingsmill, V., (2016). Simulations for the Discipline Specific and Professional Education of Foreign Policy Graduates. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 13(5).
Kim, W. and Bueno de Mesquita, B., (1995). How Perceptions Influence the Risk of War. International Studies Quarterly, 39(1): 51-65.
Krain, M. and Lantis, J. S., (2006). Building Knowledge? Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Global Problems Summit Simulation. International Studies Perspectives, 7(4): 395-407.
Kuo, R., Curriden, C., Cooper, C. A., Chang, J., Smith, J. and Ke, I. (2023). Simulating Chinese Gray Zone Coercion of Taiwan: Identifying Redlines and Escalation Pathways. RAND Corporation.
Landwehr, P., Spraragen, M., Ranganathan, B., Carley, K. M., & Zyda, M. (2013). Games, Social Simulations, and Data-Integration for Policy Decisions: The SUDAN Game. Simulation & Gaming, 44(1): 151-177.
Lin-Greenberg, E., Pauly, R. B. C. and, Schneider, J. G., (2022). Wargaming for International Relations Research. European Journal of International Relations, 28(1): 83-109.
Mandel, R. (1977). Political Gaming and Foreign Policy Making during Crises. World Politics, 29(4): 610-625.
Marsh, S. (2013). Foreign Policy Decision Making. Smith, S., Hadfield, A., and Dunne, T. (Der.), Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 107–126.
McConnell, R. A., Gerges, M., Dalbey, J., Dial, T., Hodge, G., Leners, M., ... & Schoof, P. (2018). The Effect of Simple Role-Playing Games on the Wargaming Step of the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP): A Mixed Methods Approach. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 45.
McDermott, R., (1992). Prospect Theory in International Relations: The Iranian Hostage Rescue Mission. Political Psychology, 13(2): 237-263.
McQueen, A., (2005). A groupthink perspective on the invasion of Iraq. International Affairs Review, 14(2), 53-79.
Meade, C. and Molander, R. C., (2006). Considering the Effects of a Catastrophic Terrorist Attack. RAND Corporation.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W., III. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books.
Meyer-Nieberg, S., Pickl, S., and Zsifkovits, M., (2015). Designing a Risk Management Framework for Forecasting National Security Issues. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, 151, 39-48
Millot, D. M., Molander, R. C., and Wilson, P., (1993). The Day After... Study: Nuclear Proliferation in the Post-Cold War World. RAND Corporation.
Mintz, A., (1993). The Decision to Attack Iraq: A Noncompensatory Theory of Decision Making. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37(4): 595–618.
Mintz, A., (2004). How Do Leaders Make Decisions? A Poliheuristic Perspective. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48(1): 3-13.
Mintz, A., and DeRouen, K., (2010). Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mintz, A., Geva, N., Redd, S. B., & Carnes, A. (1997). The effect of dynamic and static choice sets on political decision making: An analysis using the decision board platform. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 553-566.
Mintz, A., and Wayne, C., (2016). The polythink syndrome: U.S. foreign policy decisions on 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and ISIS. Stanford University Press.
Oppermann, K. (2014). Delineating the Scope Conditions of the Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decision Making: The Noncompensatory Principle and the Domestic Salience of Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy Analysis, 10(1): 23-41.
O’Toole, T., Mair, M., and Inglesby, T. V., (2002). Shining Light on ‘Dark Winter. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 34(7): 972-983.
Oppenheimer, M. F. (2012). From prediction to recognition: Using alternate scenarios to improve foreign policy decisions. SAIS Review of International Affairs, 32(1), 19-31.
Ostrom, C. W., and Job, B. L., (1986). The President and the Political Use of Force. American Political Science Review, 80(2): 541-566.
Özkececi-Taner, B. (2005). The impact of institutionalized ideas in coalition foreign policy making: Turkey as an example, 1991-2002. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1(3), 249-278.
Özdamar, Ö. and Erciyas, O., (2019). Turkey and Cyprus: A Poliheuristic Analysis of Decisions during the Crises of 1964, 1967, and 1974. Foreign Policy Analysis, 16(3): 457-477.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Pennock, M. J., Yu, Z., Hirschman, K. B., Pepe, K., Pauly, M. V., Naylor, M. D., & Rouse, W. B. (2018), “Developing a Policy Flight Simulator to Facilitate the Adoption of an Evidence-Based Intervention”, IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine, 6: 1-12.
Perla, P. P. (1990). The Art of Wargaming: A Guide for Professionals and Hobbyists. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
Predd, J. B., Chessen, M., Smith, G., (2025). Infinite Potential-Insights from the Two Moonshots Scenario: After-Action Report from a Sequence of Day After Artificial General Intelligence Exercises. RAND Corporation.
Predd, J. B., DeLuca, P., Savitz, S., Geist, E., & Lee, C. (2025). Thinking through protracted war with China: Nine scenarios (Research Report No. RR-A1475-1). RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1475-1.html
Pollack, M. A. (2007). Rational choice and EU politics. Handbook of European union politics, 31-55.
RAND Europe. (2024). Clean energy R&I opportunities to ensure European energy security. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/2024/clean-energy-security-eu.html
Sabin, P. (2012). Simulating War: Studying Conflict through Simulation Games. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Qi, W. and Liu, X., (2022). Taiwan Changes Computerized War Games to Map-Based Simulation, Shows Lack of Confidence, Self-Deception. Global Times.
Raymond, C. (2014). Can’t Get No (Dis) Satisfaction: The Statecraft Simulation’s Effect on Student Decision Making. Journal of Political Science Education, 10(3): 302-314.
Raymond, C. and Sorensen, K., (2008). The Use of a Middle East Crisis Simulation in an International Relations Course. Political Science & Politics, 41(1): 179-182.
Reddie, A. W., Goldblum, B. L., Lakkaraju, K., Reinhardt, J., Nacht, M., & Epifanovskaya, L. (2018). Next-Generation Wargames. Science, 362(6421): 1362-1364.
Reuter, T. K. (2016). Simulating Peace Negotiations: A Case Study of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Simulation & Gaming, 47(6): 818–836.
Saiya, N. (2015). The Statecraft Simulation and Foreign Policy Attitudes among Undergraduate Students. Journal of Political Science Education, 12(1): 58–71.
Santos, C. H. D., De Queiroz, J. A., Leal, F., & Montevechi, J. A. B. (2022). Use of Simulation in the Industry 4.0 Context: Creation of a Digital Twin to Optimise Decision Making on Non-Automated Process. Journal of Simulation, 16(3): 284-297.
Schloemann, C., vd., (2010). Maritime Domain Awareness Operational Game ’10. Naval War College, Game Reports.
Shaw, C. M. (2004). Using Role-Play Scenarios in the IR Classroom: An Examination of Exercises on Peacekeeping Operations and Foreign Policy Decision Making. International Studies Perspectives, 5(1): 1–22.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York: Wiley.
Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of Human Behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41: 1-20.
Simon, H. A. (1992). What is an Explanation of Behavior?. Psychological Science, 3(3): 150-161.
Szalai, M. (2008). Rational choice theory in early cold war US defense policy-The role of ‘defense rationalists. Monograph. Central European University.
Tomlin, D., Bowers, P. and Graydon, K. (2023). E-learning Simulations for Teaching Clinical Decision-Making in an Audiology Training Program. American Journal of Audiology, 32(4): 878-888.
Vlahos, M. (1980). War Games Conducted at NWC, 1919-1941. Naval War College Archives.
Vlahos, M. (1986). Wargaming, an Enforcer of Strategic Realism: 1919-1942. Naval War College Review, 39(2), 7–22.
Wargaming Department (2011). Kuznetsov Naval Academy Game ’11. Naval War College, Game Reports.
Wargaming Department (2013). Kuznetsov Naval Academy Game ’13. Naval War College, Game Reports.
Wasser, B., Oberholtzer, J., Pettyjohn, S. L., & Mackenzie, W. (2019). Gaming gray zone tactics: Design considerations for a structured strategic game (Research Report No. RR-2915-A). RAND Corporation.
Wiggins, W. M., Ward, D. E., and Berbrick, W., (2010). Global Title X Series ’10: Global Maritime Partnerships Game. Naval War College, Game Reports.
Zeff, E. E. (2003). Negotiating in the European Council: A Model European Union Format for Individual Classes. International Studies Perspectives, 4(3): 265–274.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Policy and Administration (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Cansu Paslıoğlu ^*
0000-0002-9093-4039
Türkiye

Publication Date

September 17, 2026

Submission Date

June 24, 2026

Acceptance Date

August 4, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 9 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.54472/jobig.1978384

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA88SH94KP

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Paslıoğlu, C. (2026). EGO-LED AND ALTER-LED SIMULATIONS IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING. Journal of Business Innovation and Governance, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.54472/jobig.1978384

AMA

1.Paslıoğlu C. EGO-LED AND ALTER-LED SIMULATIONS IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING. JoBIG. 2026;9(2). doi:10.54472/jobig.1978384

Chicago

Paslıoğlu, Cansu. 2026. “EGO-LED AND ALTER-LED SIMULATIONS IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING”. Journal of Business Innovation and Governance 9 (2). https://doi.org/10.54472/jobig.1978384.

EndNote

Paslıoğlu C (September 1, 2026) EGO-LED AND ALTER-LED SIMULATIONS IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING. Journal of Business Innovation and Governance 9 2

IEEE

[1]C. Paslıoğlu, “EGO-LED AND ALTER-LED SIMULATIONS IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING”, JoBIG, vol. 9, no. 2, Sept. 2026, doi: 10.54472/jobig.1978384.

ISNAD

Paslıoğlu, Cansu. “EGO-LED AND ALTER-LED SIMULATIONS IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING”. Journal of Business Innovation and Governance 9/2 (September 1, 2026). https://doi.org/10.54472/jobig.1978384.

JAMA

1.Paslıoğlu C. EGO-LED AND ALTER-LED SIMULATIONS IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING. JoBIG. 2026;9. doi:10.54472/jobig.1978384.

MLA

Paslıoğlu, Cansu. “EGO-LED AND ALTER-LED SIMULATIONS IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING”. Journal of Business Innovation and Governance, vol. 9, no. 2, Sept. 2026, doi:10.54472/jobig.1978384.

Vancouver

1.Cansu Paslıoğlu. EGO-LED AND ALTER-LED SIMULATIONS IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING. JoBIG. 2026 Sep. 1;9(2). doi:10.54472/jobig.1978384

Considerations Before JoBIG Publication Application

1. Author(s) should carefully review the journal's purpose and scope before submitting their publications to JoBIG.
2. The publications applying to JoBIG must be prepared and submitted in accordance with the order specified in the journal writing style. Otherwise, the evaluation process for the publication will not be started.
3. Except for the rules specified in the JoBIG writing style, all sections requested in the JoBIG DergiPark system (title of the publication, Turkish-English abstract, Turkish-English keywords, title, name, the institution of employment, ORCID ID, etc.) are required for application.
4. Publications applying to JoBIG must have an Extended Abstract of at least 1500 words in English.
5. JoBIG has adopted the JEL (Journal of Economic Literature) classification code application, and at least 2 and a maximum 4 JEL classification codes must be specified in the publications to be sent.
6. The publications should not contain any information regarding the identity or institutional information of the author(s).
7. Publications are checked for plagiarism using iThenticate software. Publications with a similarity rate (including references and citations) exceeding 25% are not taken into consideration.
8. The author(s) is responsible for the academic honesty and publication ethics principles specified in the JoBIG “Ethical Principles and Publication Policy”.
9. JoBIG requests an Ethics Committee Approval Certificate for the publications (publications containing surveys, etc.) that apply. The author(s) must specify this document in the "Additional Documents" section of the DergiPark system at the time of application.

JoBIG Publication Application Documents
- Publication Full Text (must not contain any information about the author(s))
- Copyright Transfer Form (available in the system at the time of submission)
- Ethics Committee Approval Document / Author(s) Consent Form (must be uploaded to the additional documents section at the time of submission)

JoBIG Writing Style
1. Page Format:
a. Size: A4
b. Top, Bottom, Right Margins: 2.5 cm
c. Left Margin: 4 cm
d. Paragraphs: Justified
e. Spacing Between Paragraphs: 6 pt
f. Paragraph Indent: 1 cm
g. Page Limit: Publications should not exceed 20 pages.
2. Text Format:
a. Font: Times New Roman
b. Font Size: Main Text: 11 Points; Titles: 12 Points
c. Line and Paragraph Spacing: Single
d. Alignment: Justified
e. Headings: Bold; Level Numbers Format: First Level Headings: Uppercase, Other Level Headings: First Letter Capitalized; Paragraph Spacing: Before and After, 12 pt
3. Keywords:
a. Keyword Limit: 3-5 Keywords
b. Font Format: 8 Points; Italic; Thick
4. Summary:
a. Content: Purpose, Research Management, and Findings.
b. Word Limit: Maximum 200 words
c. Font Format: 9 Points; Italic
d. Title: Bold, Uppercase
5. Figure, Table Format:
a. Color: It is recommended to use Black, White, and Grayscale.
b. Font: Up to 10 Points; Times New Roman
6. Equations: They should be placed in the middle of the page and each equation should be given a Sequence Number (The Sequence Numbers of the Equations should be Justified to the Right of the Page and in Parenthesis).
7. Citation and Bibliography:
a. Source:
i. Font: 10 Points
ii. Bibliography Style: JoBIG applies APA (American Psychological Association) Bibliography Style. Publications should be prepared in accordance with the Writing Principles specified in the APA Publication Handbook (6th Edition). Some Bibliography Examples Are Given Below:
Book with one author: Sayılgan, G. (2017). Business Finance, Political Bookstore, Ankara.
Multi-authored book: Akkuş, Ö. and Ozkan, H. (2016). Qualitative Data Analysis with Stata Applications, Seçkin Publishing House, Ankara.
Single-author article: Zeren, F. (2017) Investigation of the Dividend Riddle: An Application on the BIST Dividend-25 Index, Kırklareli University Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 1-15.
Multi-author article: Saraç, M. and Zeren, F. (2015) The Dependency of Islamic Bank Rates to Conventional Bank Interest Rates: Further Evidence from Turkey, Applied Economics, February, 212-235.
Thesis: Kökdemir, C. (2004) Organizational Culture and Employee-Employer Relationship. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Gazi University Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara.
Internet resources: Müderrisoğlu, O. (2006, 21 August). The Anatolian approach will give life to 70 thousand SMEs. Morning Newspaper. http://archiv.sabah.com.tr/2006/08/21/eko110.html (Access Date, 20 October 2007).
b. Citation: JoBIG adopts In-Text Citation Method. Publications should be prepared in accordance with the In-Text Citation Method. References presented in the text should be included in the bibliography. Some Citation Examples Are Below:
Citation in single-authored publications: (Zeren, 2013: 102).
Citation in publications with two authors: (Demirci and Zeren, 2016: 34).
Citation in publications with three or more authors: (Zeren et al., 2007: 77).

Note on the JoBIG Publication Evaluation Process
The JoBIG Editorial Board reviews the referenced publications in terms of scope, originality, and contribution to the literature. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject publications that are not original, fall outside the scope of JoBIG, or are not prepared and presented in accordance with the spelling rules. Applications found suitable for evaluation are sent to at least two referees based on the blind refereeing system. The Editorial Board may forward the publications to the author(s) with a revision request or may make adjustments to the spelling rules when necessary.

Publication Policy

Blind Refereeing and Evaluation Process Policy
JoBIG uses a blind peer-review system to evaluate studies that have submitted applications for publication in the journal. Blind peer review is the most ideal method used to evaluate scientific publications objectively and effectively and to prepare them for publication. This method serves the principle of "objectivity", which is the basis of the scientific method and means being impartial by avoiding prejudices. JoBIG uses the double-blind peer-review method in evaluating studies. Author and referee names are kept confidential in the double-blind refereeing method.

Initial Evaluation Process:
Studies that apply to JoBIG for publication enter the initial evaluation process. In this process, studies are evaluated in the context of compliance with the JoBIG spelling rules. Studies that do not comply with the spelling rules are returned to the author(s).
Studies that comply with the spelling rules are checked for the similarity rate through the iThenticate software. Publication ethics in the studies applying to JoBIG is the responsibility of the author(s), but studies with a similarity rate (including references and citations) exceeding 25% are not evaluated and are returned to the author(s).
For studies that require an Ethics Committee Approval Certificate (studies that require a survey or scale application, that include interviews and observations, that are developed by others such as documents, pictures, questionnaires, and that require permission to use), the necessary permissions have been obtained from the ethics committees or commissions before the research is conducted, must be submitted as an annex to the application. For publications that do not have an Ethics Committee Approval Certificate, written and signed consent is requested from the author(s) that the study was conducted in accordance with ethical principles. The author(s) must specify any of these documents in the "Additional Documents" section of the DergiPark system at the time of application. In the absence of these documents, the work is returned to the author(s) during the initial evaluation process.

Preliminary Evaluation Process:
Studies that pass the initial evaluation are sent to the editor(s) for preliminary evaluation. The editor(s) evaluates the study in terms of its suitability for the purpose and scope of the journal. Studies that do not comply with the purpose and scope of JoBIG are returned to their author(s). Studies in accordance with the purpose and scope of JoBIG are forwarded to the field editor in accordance with the field of study.

Referee Evaluation Process:
Studies that pass the preliminary evaluation are taken into the referee evaluation process by the field editors. In this process, studies are forwarded to expert referees for academic evaluation. At least 2 referees are appointed for each study. If both referees give a positive opinion, the referee process is completed. If necessary, the field editor may go for an additional referee evaluation.
The maximum time given for the evaluation of the work sent to the referees is 4 weeks. A new referee is appointed for the studies for which the referee report is not made within the specified time.
Corrections and improvement suggestions by the referees or field editors must be completed by the author(s) within 2 months. Reviewers may request corrections and improvements from the author(s) more than once if necessary. Works that do not fulfill the required regulation requests within the specified time will be rejected by JoBIG.

Correction Directive and Upload Guide Fact Sheet
One or more corrections and improvements may be requested by the editors, field editors and/or referees for the work in the evaluation process. The author(s) is responsible for completing the corrections and improvements in a complete, explanatory, and timely manner, being aware that the requested correction and improvement suggestions are for the purpose and increase the originality of the work. The author(s) is responsible for uploading the requested corrections and improvements to the system according to the conditions specified in the Correction Directive and Upload Guide.

Publication Withdrawal Procedure
In accordance with the JoBIG publication policies, the author(s) and the journal management have duties and responsibilities during the removal of a study.

Author(s) Responsibilities:
If the author(s) detect an error or inaccuracy during the publication, early appearance, or evaluation phase of their work, they are obliged to cooperate with the JoBIG editors to withdraw the work. The author(s) who wish to withdraw their work during the evaluation phase are obliged to forward their request to the jobig@ikcu.edu.tr e-mail address. JoBIG reviews the notice of withdrawal and returns it to the author(s) within one week at the latest. The author(s) may not submit the study(s) for consideration to another journal unless the withdrawal request for the study has been approved by JoBIG.

Editors Responsibilities:
Editors are obliged to initiate an investigation about a work that has been published, released, or is under evaluation if there is a suspicion of copyright, conflict of interest, and/or plagiarism. If the editors determine that there is copyright, conflict of interest, and/or plagiarism in the work as a result of the examination, they withdraw the work from the evaluation and return the work to its author(s), explaining the detected situations in detail. In the event that copyright infringement, conflict of interest, and/or plagiarism is detected in a published or early-view work, the editors take the following withdrawal and notification processes within one week at the latest:

For work involving ethical violations;
1. The phrase “withdrawn” is added to the beginning of the publication title.
2. Instead of the "Abstract" and "Full Text" contents, the reasons for the withdrawal of the study (with detailed evidence, if any) are published together with the notifications of the institutions and organizations to which the author(s) are affiliated.
3. Notice of withdrawal of the study is posted on the JoBIG homepage.
4. “Withdrawn: Study Title”, “Reasons for Withdrawal” and “Original Citations” are added to the table of contents of the first JoBIG issue after the publication date of the study and shared with the public and researchers.
5. Withdrawal/withdrawal notifications regarding the study are sent to the institution(s) to which the author(s) are affiliated.
6. Withdrawal/withdrawal notifications regarding the study are sent to the National Library Directorate to be registered in the institutions and organizations, index systems, and catalogs where JoBIG is indexed.
7. In addition, JoBIG may recommend that the publishing houses and/or editorial boards, where the author(s) of the work whose ethics are violated, are located, ensure the validity and reliability of the published studies or withdraw them.

Policy for Objection to Evaluation Results
The author(s) may object to the evaluation result. Author(s) should send their objection justifications regarding the evaluation results of their work to jobig@ikcu.edu.tr in a scientific language and with reference to the justifications. Objections made are reviewed by JoBIG within 1 month at the latest (opinions can be asked to the field editor and the referees of the study) and a positive or negative response is given to the author(s). In case the objections of the author(s) to the evaluation result are found positive, JoBIG restarts the evaluation process by appointing new field editors and/or referees in accordance with the subject area of the study.

Ethical Principles
JoBIG adopts the principle of dissemination and development of information impartially and in accordance with ethical rules in publication processes, and in this context, it is based on the guidelines and policies developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the practice guide on abuse and violation of publication ethics. In addition, JoBIG is committed to the rules specified in the YÖK Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive.

Ethical Principles and Responsibilities for Authors
From the moment they apply to JoBIG, the author(s) assure that their work is original, scientific, and in compliance with ethical rules.
The responsibility of preparing the copyrighted materials of the work (tables, figures, quotations, etc.) in accordance with legal and ethical regulations belongs to the author(s) of the work.
The sources used in the study should be arranged in accordance with the guidelines specified and taken as a basis in the JoBIG writing rules.
Each author whose name is included in the study is responsible for the content of the study.
Conflict of interest regarding the study is the responsibility of the author(s) of the supporting institution and financial resource statement.
The responsibility of the declaration regarding the acquisition, use, and analysis of the data used in the study belongs to the author(s) of the study. The publisher, editor(s), field editor, and/or referee(s) may request the raw data that forms the basis of the study from the author(s).

Ethical Principles and Responsibilities for Editors and Field Editors
Editors are responsible for ensuring that published works comply with the JoBIG publication policy, purpose, and scope.
Editors are responsible for carrying out the necessary work to improve the quality of JoBIG standards and publications.
Editors and field editors evaluate the submitted works impartially and independently, with the principle of academic diversity of opinion and scientific freedom of thought, and without exposing the author(s) to discrimination, and ensure that the studies undergo a fair double-blind peer-review.
Editors and field editors guarantee that all information regarding the author(s) of the study will remain confidential until publication.
Editors do not allow a conflict of interest between authors, field editors, and referees.
Field editors and, where necessary, editors have full authority to appoint referees to the study.
The editors are responsible for the final decision regarding the publication processes of the studies whose results are reported by the field editors.
Editors and field editors should prioritize the principle of transparency in all publication processes as per the JoBIG publication policy.

Ethical Principles and Responsibilities for Referees
The referees are obliged to know that the evaluation process is confidential and should not be shared with third parties. The confidentiality rule also covers those who refuse to arbitrate.
The referees are responsible for submitting an objective, impartial, scientific, understandable, and constructive evaluation report regarding the study within the specified time. Responsibility for non-academic or legal evaluations belongs to the referees.
Reviewers should only accept the evaluation of studies directly related to their area of expertise. In the referee requests sent for the evaluation of the studies that do not match their field of expertise, they should reject the evaluation and report this situation to the JoBIG editors/field editors with their justifications.
The referees are responsible for informing the editors/field editors in cases where they cannot evaluate the work submitted to them for evaluation by the field editors or editors within the specified time.
Reviewers should forward the issue to the JoBIG editors/field editors in cases of uncited published publication detection, copyright infringement, and/or plagiarism by the author(s).

Editör

Emrah NOYAN

Public Economy, Finance Studies, Budget and Financial Planning, Public Finance, Financial Law, Theory of Treasury

Editör Yardımcısı

EU

Ela Burcu UÇEL

Human Resources Management, Organizasyon, Organisation and Management Theory

Yayın Kurulu

HU

Hayrettin USUL

Financial Accounting, Internal Check

Sevtap ÜNAL

Marketing Research Methodology, Consumer Behaviour, International Marketing, Product and Brand Management

Yeşim KAPTAN

Communication Theories, Communication and Media Studies (Other), Screen and Media Culture, Turkish Folklore (Other), Anthropology of Media

PD

Paddy DOLAN

Sociology (Other)

EP

Elitsa PELTEKOVA

Information Systems Development Methodologies and Practice

	Google Scholar (2021)
	RootIndexing (22.04.2022)
	ResearchBib (21.04.2022)
	DRJI - Directory of Research Journals Indexing (22.04.2022)
	Index Copernicus (22.04.2022)
	EuroPub (31.03.2023)

EGO-LED AND ALTER-LED SIMULATIONS IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING

DIŞ POLİTİKA KARAR ALMA SÜREÇLERİNDE EGO-LED VE ALTER-LED SİMÜLASYONLAR

Abstract

Keywords

EGO-LED AND ALTER-LED SIMULATIONS IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING

Abstract

Keywords

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite

Aim & Scope

Author Guidelines

Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

Price Policy

Indexes

Other Indexes

Journal Boards

Editör

Editör Yardımcısı

Yayın Kurulu