The Journal of Public Administration and Policy (KAYPOD) was established to publish public administration and public policy studies. The guidelines and policies published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) were taken into account as open access when creating the ethical duties and responsibilities contained in the Journal Public Administration and Policy. The following are the ethical principles and rules related to scientific research and the ethical principles and rules that authors, referees and editors should follow.

---

Ethical Principles and Rules Related to Scientific Research

• Scientific methods should be used at the stages of collecting, analyzing, interpreting and reporting data related to the studies. Results that are not of a scientific nature cannot be included in the scope of research.
• National and international regulations should be adhered to in the research process and permission should be obtained from the competent authorities. The data obtained during the research process should be used to the extent or form permitted by the competent authorities. In studies aimed at individuals, the consent of the participants should be observed and it should be essential that the information that should not be presented remains confidential.
*Researchers are obliged to inform the relevant persons and institutions about the negative situations that may occur as a result of the research. Researchers have the right not to participate in the study due to adverse circumstances.

---

Ethical Principles and Rules for Authors

•Articles submitted to the Journal of Public Administration and Policy should be original studies in the related fields of social sciences, especially public administration and public policies.
• An accurate and appropriate representation of the source is required for all the resources used in the articles.
• The articles submitted to the journal should not have been sent to another journal and the REGISTERED Copyright Transfer Form should be completed.
• People who do not contribute ideas to the article should not be included as authors. Unpublished or unpublished works should not be included as a source. All or part of any work cannot be published without permission or without showing the source.
• Conflicts of interest related to the submitted article should be stated and the reason should be explained. If there are authors or authors, they should indicate the financial sources of the work.
• The author or authors should act in accordance with the citation system determined by the journal at the article writing stage.
• Authors may be asked to submit raw data related to their work to the editorial board during the review process, in which case authors may be expected to share their raw data with the editorial board. The authors are obliged to keep the data on a published article for a period of 5 years.
• Authors should inform the editor and the board of editors when they detect an error in their work. They should carry out the correction or withdrawal processes in cooperation with the editors.

---

Ethical Principles and Rules for Reviewers

All articles submitted to the Journal of Public Administration and Policy are evaluated by a double-blind peer-review process. Double-blind review means keeping the authors confidential from the reviewers and the reviewers from the authors in order to ensure an impartial, objective and independent evaluation process. Articles are sent to the reviewers via the Dergipark system for evaluation. The reviewers make the contribution of the article they evaluate to the main publication areas of KAYPOD and make their decisions about whether the article is publishable by filling out the form sent to them through the system. The ethical responsibilities of academics who work as referees in the Journal of Public Administration and Policy are as follows:

* Reviewers should take care of reviewing articles related to their areas of expertise.
* Reviewers should inform the editors that they cannot evaluate studies that may be a conflict of interest.
* Reviewers should evaluate the articles impartially. Reviewers should not transfer information from the article to their own study, nor should they take academic/personal interests into account. Studies should not be shared with third parties during the arbitration process.
* Reviewers are required to fill out the online Article Evaluation Form for the articles they have evaluated. Reviewers should express their opinions about the article they are evaluating in a reasoned manner in the article evaluation form.
* Reviewers should avoid using language that will offend the authors in their article evaluations, but on the contrary, the style they use in their suggestions should be scientific. In case of an adverse situation, the editors may contact the reviewers and request that they reconsider and correct their comments.
* Reviewers should take into account the principles of scientific research and publication ethics of the journal. Reviewers are required to complete their evaluations by complying with ethical responsibilities within the time given to them.

---

Ethical Principles and Rules of the Editor(s)

The editors are obliged to fulfill the ethical responsibilities contained in the ‘COPE Guide to Ethical Behavior and Best Practices for Journal Editors' published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The ethical duties and responsibilities of editors are as follows:
• The editor is obliged to make efforts to increase the quality of the journal and contribute to its development.
• The editor is required to support the freedom of expression of the authors.
• The editor is responsible for ensuring that the sections in the journal where peer review is not required (letter to the editor, invited articles, conference announcements, etc.). it is necessary to make sure that it is clearly stated.
• The editor should make efforts to ensure that the published articles are compatible with the knowledge and skills of the journal readers.
• The editor should ask the reviewers to evaluate the articles in accordance with their knowledge and expertise. In this way, appropriate evaluation of the articles by experts in their field should be ensured.
• The editor is obliged to request that the reviewers indicate that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the article before evaluating an article.
• The editor is required to provide the reviewers with all the necessary information about the reviewer evaluation process and what they are expected to do from the reviewers.
• The editor should ensure that the reviewer evaluation process is carried out by double-blind reviewing and should not disclose reviewers to the authors and authors to the reviewers.
• The editor should evaluate the reviewers according to their timing and performance.
• The editor should create a database of reviewers and update the database according to the performance of the reviewers.
• The editor should remove reviewers from the list of reviewers who make rude and offensive comments
• The editor should constantly update and expand the list of reviewers according to the areas of expertise of the reviewers.
• The editor should constantly update the sample template with publication and writing rules for what is expected of the authors themselves.
• The editor should evaluate the articles submitted to the journal in terms of the rules of journal writing, the importance and originality of the study, and if he decides to reject the article during the first submission process, he should clearly and impartially communicate the reason for this to the authors. In the process, the grammar of the article, punctuation and/or spelling rules (margins, proper referencing, etc.) if it is decided that it should be reviewed in terms of, the authors should be informed about it and given time to make the necessary corrections.
• The submission and acceptance dates for publication should be included in the articles.
• When authors have a request for information about the status of their articles, authors should be provided with information about the status of their articles so as not to disrupt the double-blind peer review process.
• The final decision on the articles sent to the journal for publication belongs to the editorial board. The editorial board is obliged to determine the articles to be published in the journal within the objective and academic criteria.
• The editor should communicate the publication and writing rules to the members of the board of editors and explain what is expected of them.
• The editor should provide the most up-to-date version of the publication and writing rules to the members of the board of editors.
• The editor should evaluate the members of the board of editors and elect members to the editorial board who will actively participate in the development of the journal.
• The editor should inform the members of the editorial board of the following roles and responsibilities
- To support the development of the journal
- To write reviews about their areas of expertise when they are asked to
- Review and improve the rules of publication and spelling
- To fulfill the necessary responsibilities in the operation of the journal

---

Plagiarism and Unethical Behavior

All articles submitted to the Journal of Public Administration and Policy are scanned with the Turnitin/Itenticate program before publication. Articles with a similarity rate of 20% or less are accepted for publication. Articles that exceed this rate are examined in detail and, if deemed necessary, are sent back to the authors for revision or correction, and if plagiarism or unethical behavior is detected, publication is rejected. Examples of unethical behavior are listed below:
- Citing people as authors who did not contribute intellectually to the study,
- Failure to list the people who contributed ideas to the study as authors,
- Failure to indicate if the article is derived from a master's/doctoral thesis or a project,
- Slicing, i.e. publishing more than one article from a single study,
- Failure to disclose conflicts of interest regarding submitted manuscripts,
- Deciphering the double blind review process