The Liberal Dilemma: Balancing Security and Freedom in Public Risk Management

Abdullah Demirel

doi:10.36484/liberal.1831201

TR EN

Liberal İkilem: Kamu Risk Yönetiminde Güvenlik ve Özgürlük Dengesi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, liberal perspektiften kamu yönetiminde risk yönetimi ile bireysel özgürlükler arasındaki gerilimi incelemektedir. Devlet müdahalesinin kriz alanlarında genişlemesiyle birlikte, kamu güvenliği ile temel haklar arasında çatışmalar ortaya çıkmaktadır. Nitel karşılaştırmalı bir yaklaşım benimseyen araştırma, sağlık, ekonomi, çevre, afet yönetimi ve teknoloji alanlarındaki risk yönetimini Türkiye, ABD, AB ve Güney Kore örnekleri üzerinden analiz etmektedir. Çerçeve, politika araçlarına, negatif ve pozitif özgürlük üzerindeki etkilere ve orantılılık, şeffaflık, katılım ve geçicilik ilkelerine odaklanmaktadır. Bulgular, ikili bir etki olduğunu göstermektedir: kısıtlayıcı önlemler negatif özgürlüğü sınırlayabilirken, sosyal korumalar ve kamu hizmetleri pozitif özgürlüğü güçlendirebilir. Çalışma, liberal demokrasilerde meşru risk yönetiminin, devlet müdahalesi ile bireysel özerklik arasında orantılılık, şeffaflık, katılım ve geçicilik ilkeleriyle yönlendirilen bir denge gerektirdiği sonucuna varmaktadır.

Keywords

Risk Yönetimi, Bireysel Özgürlükler, Liberal Kamu Yönetimi, Karşılaştırmalı Kamu Politikası, Demokratik Yönetişim

The Liberal Dilemma: Balancing Security and Freedom in Public Risk Management

Abstract

This study examines the tension between risk management in public administration and individual freedoms from a liberal perspective. As state intervention expands across crisis domains, conflicts arise between public security and fundamental rights. Adopting a qualitative comparative approach, the research analyzes risk governance in health, economy, environment, disaster management, and technology, using Türkiye, the US, the EU, and South Korea as cases. The framework focuses on policy instruments, effects on negative and positive liberty, and the principles of proportionality, transparency, participation, and temporariness. Findings show a dual impact: restrictive measures may curtail negative liberty, while social protections and public services can enhance positive liberty. The study concludes that legitimate risk governance in liberal democracies requires a balance between state intervention and individual autonomy, guided by proportionality, transparency, participation, and temporal limitation.

Keywords

Risk Management, Individual Freedoms, Liberal Public Administration, Comparative Public Policy, Democratic Governance

Ethical Statement

Ethics Statement: In this study, no method requiring the permission of the “Ethics Committee” was used.

References

Acemoğlu, D. & Robinson, J. A. (2019). The narrow corridor: States, societies, and the fate of liberty. London: Penguin Press.
Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Aktan, C. C. (2019). Sosyal, siyasal ve ekonomik yönleriyle liberal düşünce. C. Can Aktan & Bircan Şahin (Ed.). In Liberalizm, demokrasi ve sınırlı devlet. İstanbul: Orion Yayınları.
Aleinikoff, T. A. (2002). Semblances of sovereignty: The Constitution, the state, and American citizenship. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ansell, C., Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic as a game changer for public administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to turbulent problems. Public Management Review, 23(7), 949–960.
Arena, M., Arnaboldi, M. & Azzone, G. (2010). The organizational dynamics of enterprise risk management. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(7), 659-675.
Asrak Hasdemir, T. & Keskin, M. (2023). Şeffaflık, bilgi edinme ve iletişim hakkı: Covid-19 pandemisi koşullarında kurumsal uygulamalar üzerine bir inceleme. Etkileşim, 11, 12-42.
Ataç-Sudtt, B. A. (2025). Etkinliği ve meşruiyeti dengelemek: su basmış bölgelerde mülk sahiplerinin yeniden yerleştirilmesi. Natural Hazards, 121, 1916–19187.
Atkinson, A. B. (2015). Inequality: What can be done?. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Baycık, G., Dulay Yangın, D., Yay, O. & Doğan, S. (2021). COVID-19 pandemisinde uzaktan çalışma: Tespit ve öneriler. Çalışma ve Toplum, 3(70), 1683-1728.

Beck, U. (2009). World at risk. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Berlin, I. (1958). Two concepts of liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bjørnskov, C. (2016). Economic freedom and economic crises. European Journal of Political Economy, 45(Supplement), 11-23.
Black, J. (2005). The emergence of risk-based regulation and the new public risk management in the United Kingdom. Public Law, 2005 (Fall), 512-548.
Bolsover, G. (2020). Balancing freedoms, rights and responsibilities during COVID in US: a study of anti- and pro-restriction discourse. Centre for Democratic Engagement, University of Leeds. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.09440.
Buldu, B. (2024). Afetlerle mücadele stratejisinde toplumun rolü ve afet eğitimlerinin önemi. Uluslararası Sosyal ve Ekonomik Çalışmalar Dergisi, 5(1), 189-200.
Burtan, Ç. B. (2022). Sağlık hakkı çerçevesinde aşı karşıtlığının kamu düzeni bakımından değerlendirilmesi. Salgın Döneminde İnsan Hakları Sempozyumu Bildirileri Kitabı (p. 259-275). Ankara: TİHEK Yayınları.
Büthe, T. & Mattli, W. (2022). The new global rulers: The privatization of regulation in the world economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Calomiris, C. W. & Khan, U. (2015). An assessment of TARP assistance to financial institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(2), 53–80.
Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye. (2012). Küresel kriz sonrası para politikası. Retrieved from https://www.tcmb.gov.tr/
Cho, H., Ippolito, D. & Yu, Y. W. (2020). Contact tracing mobile apps for COVID-19: Privacy considerations and related trade-offs. ArXiv, abs/2003.11511.
Christensen, J. G. & Mortensen, P. B. (2024). Coping with the unforeseen: Bounded rationality and bureaucratic responses to the COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Public Policy, 44(1), 24–43.
Claessens, S. (2015). An overview of macroprudential policy tools. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 7(1), 397–422.
COSO. (2017). Enterprise risk management: Integrating with strategy and performance. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
Coşkun, A. M. (2021). Afet yönetimi ve karar destek sistemi (AYDES) üzerine bir çalışma. Kamu Yönetimi ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 3(1), 61-80.
Coşkun, Ö. A. & Eken, M. H. (2015). 2001 ve 2008 krizlerinin Türk bankacılık sektörüne etkilerinin karşılaştırılması. Maliye ve Finans Yazıları, 1(104), 105-130.
Çankaya, H. (2021). Eksik bir retorik: Kriz zamanlarında sosyal haklar. Fiscaoeconomia, 5(3), 1140-1158.
Çiftçi, A. (2020). Çevre sorunları ve liberalizm. Econder Uluslararası Akademik Dergi, 4(2), 462-478.
Daemen, J. A. M. (2022). Freedom, security, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 28(2), 286–306.
Dimova-Cookson, M. (2022). The two modern liberties of Constant and Berlin. History of European Ideas, 48(3), 229–245.
Eckersley, R. (2004). The green state: Rethinking democracy and sovereignty. Cambridge: MIT Press.
European Commission. (2019). Avrupa Yeşil Mutabakatı (COM(2019) 640 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
European Court of Human Rights (2021). Big Brother Watch ve diğerleri / Birleşik Krallık (Başvuru No. 58170/13). ECHR.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality, Volume 1: An introduction. New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fung, A. (2006). Empowered participation: Reinventing urban democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gonzalez-Vicente, R. (2018). The liberal peace fallacy: Violent neoliberalism and the temporal and spatial traps of state-based approaches to peace. Territory, Politics, Governance, 8(1), 100-116.
Gostin, L. O. & Wiley, L. F. (2020). Public health law: Power, duty, restraint (4. ed.). Oakland: University of California Press.
Green, F. & Healy, N. (2022). How inequality fuels climate change: The climate case for a Green New Deal. One Earth, 5(6), 635-649.
Green, J. F. (2021). Does carbon pricing reduce emissions? A review of ex-post analyses. Environmental Research Letters, 16(4).
Hillson, D. (2002). Extending the risk process to manage opportunities. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 235–240.
International Monetary Fund (IMF). (1999). The Korean financial crisis of 1997—A strategy of financial sector reform (IMF Working Paper WP/99/28). https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/1999/wp9928.pdf.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2018). ISO 31000:2018-Risk management guidelines.
IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Işıktac, Y. (2019). Isaiah Berlin: Negative and positive liberty. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, 68, 37-45.
Kaminski, M. E. (2021). Algorithmic impact assessments under the GDPR: Producing multi-layered explanations. International Data Privacy Law, 11(2), 125-144.
Karpman, M. & Acs, G. (2020). Unemployment insurance and economic impact payments associated with reduced hardship following the CARES Act. Urban Institute.
Kesebir, M. (2018). Türkiye’de 2001 krizi sonrası bankacılık sektörünün durumu, yapısal reformlar ile son yıllardaki gelişmeler. BEÜ AİD, 3(2), 1-19.
L. Korolchuk, O., O. Artiukh, T., V. Zaporozhets, T., O. Vasiuk, N., & Kulhinskyi, Y. (2020). Effectiveness of management in public administration in complex and crises situations. Revista San Gregorio, 1(42), 110-120.
Lane, P. R. (2019). Macrofinancial stability and the Euro. IMF Economic Review, 67(3), 424-442.
Laux, J. (2024). Institutionalised distrust and human oversight of artificial intelligence: towards a democratic design of AI governance under the European Union AI Act. AI & Society, 39, 2853-2866.
Lazcoz, G. & de Hert, P. (2023). Humans in the GDPR and AIA governance of automated and algorithmic systems: essential pre-requisites against abdicating responsibilities. Computer Law & Security Review, 50, 105833.
Leblebici, Ö. (2016). Afet yönetim yaklaşımları ve kamu politikası bağlamında afetlerin çevreye etkileri. Memleket Siyaset Yönetim, 10(23), 41-77.
Lee, H. (2021). Risk management in South Korea. In Risk management (Springer Texts in Business and Economics). Singapore: Springer.
Levi, M. & Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1), 475-507.
Levine, G. L. (2023). Democratically durable regulation. American Journal of Law and Equality, 3, 283-318.
Levitina, A. (2024). Humans in automated decision-making under the GDPR and AI Act. Revista CIDOB d’Afers Internacionals, 138, 121-143.
Lyon, D. (2022). Pandemic surveillance. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Mazzucato, M. (2020). Mission economy: A moonshot guide to changing capitalism. New York: Harper Business.
Mentxaka, O., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Coeckelbergh, M., López de Prado, M., Gómez, E., Fernández Llorca, D., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2025). Aligning trustworthy AI with democracy: A dual taxonomy of opportunities and risks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13565. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13565.
Morlino, L. & Raniolo, F. (2022). Disuguaglianza e democrazia. Milano: Mondadori.
Muhame, C., Ncube, A. & Bahta, Y. (2024). Dissemination and participation in early warnings and disaster risk reduction in South Africa. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 16(1), 1-6.
National Security Office. (2019). National cybersecurity strategy: Republic of Korea. https://www.itu.int/ Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books.
OECD. (2023). Digital government review of Türkiye: Towards a digitally-enabled government. OECD Digital Government Studies. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2024). Framework on management of emerging critical risks. OECD Public Governance Policy Papers No. 49. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Ottis, R. (2008). Analysis of the 2007 cyber-attacks against Estonia from the information warfare perspective. Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Information Warfare and Security. CCDCOE.
Öğredik, H., Avaner, T. & Uzun, M. M. (2024). A conceptual approach on disaster response management and the legality of disaster response: A case study on February 6 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes in Türkiye and presidential decrees under the state of emergency. Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(2), 679-716.
Panneer, S. (2024). Multistakeholder participation, collaboration, and networking in disaster risk reduction and pandemic management: Insights and future policy framework. Social Development Issues, 46(2), 125-149.
Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ro, B. & Garfin, G. (2024). Participatory risk governance for Seoul, South Korea’s flood risk management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 15, 317–331.
Saam, N. J., Friedrich, C. & Engelhardt, H. (2022). The value conflict between freedom and security: Explaining the variation of COVID-19 policies in democracies and autocracies. PLOS ONE, 17(9), e0274276.
Scheppele, K. L. (2019). The opportunism of populists and the defense of constitutional liberalism. German Law Journal, 20(3), 314–331.
Sheffi, Y. (2005). The resilient enterprise: Overcoming vulnerability for competitive advantage. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Sherstoboeva, E. & d Pavlenko, V. (2021). Trends in East Asian policies on digital surveillance tools during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Digital Media & Policy, 12(1), 47–65.
Sovacool, B. K. (2021). Who are the victims of low-carbon transitions? Towards a political ecology of climate change mitigation. Energy Research & Social Science, 73, 101946.
Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sunstein, C. R. (2019). On freedom. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Süner-Pla-Cerdà, S. (2025). Afet yönetiminde topluluk katılımı: Bir tasarım çerçevesi denemesi. Tasarım Kuram, 21(44), 39–60.
The White House (2006). The federal response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons learned. Washington D.C.: White House Report. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/reports/katrina-lessons-learned.
Tooze, A. (2018). Crashed: How a decade of financial crises changed the world. New York: Viking.
Tuğaç, Ç. (2024). Türkiye kentlerinde iklim değişikliğine dirençliliğin ve afet risk yönetiminin sağlanmasında kentsel ekosistem hizmetleri. Memleket Siyaset Yönetim, 19(43), 341-392.
Türkoğlu, M. C. & Kantaş Yılmaz, F. (2021). Sağlık politikası analizi: Türkiye’de COVID-19 pandemi döneminde uygulanan sağlık politikaları. Toplumsal Politika Dergisi, 2(1), 11-29.
Üner, S. (2021). COVID-19 mücadelesinde şeffaflık ve doğru bilgilendirmenin gerekliliği. Emergency Aid and Disaster Science, 1(1), 1-2.
Waldron, J. (2003). Security and liberty: The image of balance. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(2), 191-210.
World Bank (2022). State and trends of carbon pricing 2022. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
Yıldız, E. P. & Şimşekler, O. (2023). Corporate cyber security in Türkiye: Investigation of legal and corporate infrastructure – a meta-synthesis study. Global Journal of Computer Sciences: Theory and Research, 13(1), 46–58.
Zenginkuzucu, D. M. (2022). Koronavirüs önlemlerinin algılanması ve uyum motivasyonu. Salgın Döneminde İnsan Hakları Sempozyumu Bildirileri Kitabı (s. 347-366). Ankara: TİHEK Yayınları.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York: PublicAffairs.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Comparative Political Institutions, Political Theory and Political Philosophy

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Abdullah Demirel ^*
0000-0003-3503-115X
Türkiye

Publication Date

September 2, 2026

Submission Date

November 27, 2025

Acceptance Date

July 9, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Number: 123

DOI

https://doi.org/10.36484/liberal.1831201

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA96EA37EJ

APA

Demirel, A. (2026). The Liberal Dilemma: Balancing Security and Freedom in Public Risk Management. Liberal Düşünce Dergisi, 123. https://doi.org/10.36484/liberal.1831201

AMA

1.Demirel A. The Liberal Dilemma: Balancing Security and Freedom in Public Risk Management. Liberal Düşünce Dergisi. 2026;(123). doi:10.36484/liberal.1831201

Chicago

Demirel, Abdullah. 2026. “The Liberal Dilemma: Balancing Security and Freedom in Public Risk Management”. Liberal Düşünce Dergisi, nos. 123. https://doi.org/10.36484/liberal.1831201.

EndNote

Demirel A (September 1, 2026) The Liberal Dilemma: Balancing Security and Freedom in Public Risk Management. Liberal Düşünce Dergisi 123

IEEE

[1]A. Demirel, “The Liberal Dilemma: Balancing Security and Freedom in Public Risk Management”, Liberal Düşünce Dergisi, no. 123, Sept. 2026, doi: 10.36484/liberal.1831201.

ISNAD

Demirel, Abdullah. “The Liberal Dilemma: Balancing Security and Freedom in Public Risk Management”. Liberal Düşünce Dergisi. 123 (September 1, 2026). https://doi.org/10.36484/liberal.1831201.

JAMA

1.Demirel A. The Liberal Dilemma: Balancing Security and Freedom in Public Risk Management. Liberal Düşünce Dergisi. 2026. doi:10.36484/liberal.1831201.

MLA

Demirel, Abdullah. “The Liberal Dilemma: Balancing Security and Freedom in Public Risk Management”. Liberal Düşünce Dergisi, no. 123, Sept. 2026, doi:10.36484/liberal.1831201.

Vancouver

1.Abdullah Demirel. The Liberal Dilemma: Balancing Security and Freedom in Public Risk Management. Liberal Düşünce Dergisi. 2026 Sep. 1;(123). doi:10.36484/liberal.1831201

Aim & Scope

The Journal of Liberal Thought is an international, academic, and peer-reviewed journal published four times a year.

The journal publishes original works, translations (with permission from both the author and the publishing institution), abridged texts, critical editions, book and symposium reviews, and similar scholarly contributions.

In terms of its mission, the Journal of Liberal Thought is committed to publishing original studies that address social, political, and economic issues at both national and international levels, from a liberal perspective, either within a single discipline or through interdisciplinary approaches, focusing on theoretical matters or contemporary developments. In this context, the journal welcomes all studies conducted in the fields of social sciences and humanities.

Regarding its scope, the journal includes academic studies in the fields of social sciences and humanities that align with the aims stated above.

The journal features original articles, translations (with permission from the author and publishing institution), abridgements, critical editions, book and symposium reviews, and similar scholarly contributions.

In terms of its mission, The Journal of Liberal Thought is committed to publishing original works that address social, political, and economic issues from a liberal perspective, either within a single discipline or through interdisciplinary approaches, at both national and international levels. These works may engage with theoretical debates or contemporary developments. Accordingly, the journal welcomes all studies conducted in the fields of social sciences and humanities.

In terms of its scope, The Journal of Liberal Thought includes academic studies in the fields of social sciences and humanities that align with the aims outlined above.

The journal is published quarterly, in March, June, September, and December. The publication languages of The Journal of Liberal Thought are Turkish and English. All articles submitted for publication must be original works that have not been published elsewhere and are being published for the first time in The Journal of Liberal Thought. Papers previously presented at academic conferences may be accepted, provided this is clearly stated.

An exception to the originality requirement is made for writings and translations that are at least 25 years old and considered classic texts due to their significance and impact. These texts may be published regardless of whether they have been previously published. Additionally, the journal also publishes book reviews.

Author Guidelines

As of Spring 2021 (Issue 102), all submitted manuscripts must comply with the following submission guidelines.
(Click here for the editorial and submission guidelines prior to Issue 102.)The Journal of Liberal Thought is a peer-reviewed academic journal indexed in TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM) and published quarterly.
The journal publishes original articles, translations (with permission from the author and the publisher), abridgements, critical editions, book and symposium reviews, and similar academic contributions.

Submission Guidelines

The publication languages of the journal are Turkish and English. For Turkish submissions, spelling, punctuation, and abbreviations must comply with the Turkish Language Association’s Online Dictionary and Writing Rules. Submissions must be scientifically rigorous, clearly written, and logically structured.

All articles must include a Turkish and English title, abstract, and keywords; section headings within the text; and a list of references. The full length of the manuscript, including all these elements, should be between 4,000 and 10,000 words.

The abstracts in Turkish and English should each be between 100 and 150 words, and the keywords should consist of 3 to 7 words.

The author’s name should appear in bold italics, 11-point font, right-aligned directly below the article title. The author’s academic title, ORCID number, institutional affiliation, and e-mail address should be provided in a footnote marked with an asterisk (*) and set in 9-point font. Any additional explanatory notes should be presented as numbered footnotes within the text or at the bottom of the page.

The manuscript should be written in Times New Roman, 11-point font, with 1.5 line spacing. Footnotes should be single-spaced and set in 9-point font.

The manuscript file must be named after the article title—using English characters and capitalizing only the first letter of each word. Files named “Liberal Düşünce” or submitted under the author’s name will be returned without review.

Book Reviews

Book review manuscripts should be between 1,000 and 3,000 words. At the discretion of the editorial board, reviews exceeding this limit may be accepted depending on the significance of the work being reviewed.

The review heading should include the book’s title, author, place of publication, publisher, year of publication, and ISBN number. The reviewer’s name should appear in bold italics, 11-point font, right-aligned under the review title; academic title, institutional affiliation, and e-mail address should be included in a footnote (9-point font, marked with an asterisk).

The review must go beyond summary and offer a critical evaluation. The reviewer may agree or disagree with the book’s arguments, identify strengths and weaknesses, or assess its contribution to the field. The author’s perspective should be clearly articulated.

A strong review should highlight key points of the book and critically engage with them. It should generally follow a structure consisting of an introduction, discussion of the book’s significance, summary, critical analysis, and conclusion.

Page Layout

The first line of each paragraph should be indented 1.25 cm; spacing before and after paragraphs should be set to 3 nk. Text should be justified and spaced at 1.5 lines. Articles should follow a single-level heading format. The titles of Introduction, Subheadings, Conclusion, and References should be in bold. Page numbers must be placed in the bottom right corner.

In-text Citations and References
Citations
Citations and references must follow the APA (American Psychological Association) 6th edition style. Detailed information is available at: http://www.tk.org.tr/APA/apa_2.pdf. Citations must be written in the same font size as the manuscript. In-text citations should appear in parentheses after the quoted material: (Author’s Last Name, Year: Page Number). Tables and figures should also conform to APA 6.0 guidelines.

Explanatory notes may be given as footnotes, but sources may not be cited via footnotes or endnotes.

Direct quotations shorter than three lines should be included within the text. Quotations longer than three lines should be placed in a separate paragraph, single-spaced, 11-point font, and indented 1.25 cm from both sides.

Citation Examples

Single Author: (Yayla, 2017: 109)

Two Authors: (Balaam & Dillman, 2015: 545)

More than Two Authors: (Dursun, Tekiner & Tekin, 2016: 89) or (Dursun et al., 2016: 89)

Institution as Author: (Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey [TÜBİTAK], 2013); subsequent citations: (TÜBİTAK, 2013)

Chapter in Edited Book: (Beriş, 2017: 113)

No Author: (Writing Scientific Articles, 2000: 45)

Standards: (TS-40561, 1985: 6)

Web Sources without Author: (www.hurfikirler.com, 2017)

Multiple Works by Same Author in Different Years: (Yayla, 2015: 220; 2017: 130)

Different Authors with Same Last Name: (A. Aslan, 2000: 6; B. Aslan, 2010: 71)

Multiple Sources: (Aytekin, 2004: 71; Küçük, 2008: 87)

Multiple Works by Same Author in the Same Year: (Yayla, 2017a: 165), (Yayla, 2017b: 140)

Secondary Sources: (cited in Hanioğlu, 2012: 40) or (as cited in Hanioğlu, 2006: 40)

References

References should be listed alphabetically by the authors’ last names. In entries with two authors, use “and”; for more than two, separate names with commas and use “and” before the last name.

All bibliographic information must be complete. For translated works, indicate the translator. Foreign-language sources should retain their original bibliographic format.

Example entries are listed under categories such as:

Books (single author, multiple authors, institutional authors)

Translations

Edited volumes and book chapters

Journal articles (with one or multiple authors)

Conference proceedings

Reports (with or without author)

Theses

Legal documents and court rulings

Newspapers and magazines (with or without author)

Online sources

Multimedia (films, TV, CDs, videos)

Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

The Journal of Liberal Thought is a peer-reviewed academic and scientific journal indexed in TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM) and published quarterly.

The journal publishes original research articles, translations (with the permission of both the author and the original publisher), abridged texts, critical editions, book and symposium reviews, and similar scholarly works.

When preparing submissions to The Journal of Liberal Thought, authors, editors, and referees are expected to adhere to the international standards set by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). All parties involved in the publication process must comply with the responsibilities outlined below.

I. Authors’ Ethical Responsibilities
Authors submitting work to The Journal of Liberal Thought are expected to comply with the following ethical standards:

– Authors bear full intellectual responsibility for the content of their articles.
– Authors cannot claim copyright for articles submitted to the journal.
– Submissions must be original and unpublished. Neither the whole text nor any part of it may have been published elsewhere or be under review at another journal simultaneously.
– Proper citation practices must be strictly followed in all submissions.
– In the case of co-authored articles, all listed authors must have read, approved, and agreed to the submission of the manuscript to the journal.
– For translated works, authors must submit documented permission from both the original author and the publishing institution.
– Individuals who have not made an intellectual contribution to the study must not be listed as authors.
– Authors may be asked to provide raw data related to their study during the review process and must be prepared to share such data with the editorial and scientific boards upon request.
– Authors must confirm that they have the rights to use the data employed in their research, obtained all necessary permissions for analysis, and secured informed consent from any human subjects involved.
– If the author(s) discover any significant error or inaccuracy in their submitted or published work, they must promptly notify the editor or publisher and cooperate in the correction or retraction process.
– Authors may not submit the same article to more than one journal at the same time. New submissions should begin only after the previous process has been concluded.
– Authors may not propose any changes to authorship (such as adding, removing, or reordering authors) once the review process has started.
– Authors are obliged to address reviewers’ revision requests within the specified time frame. If an author refuses to make the suggested revisions, the editorial board may reject the manuscript.
– Upon acceptance for publication, the copyright of the manuscript is considered transferred to The Journal of Liberal Thought. Authors may not publish the manuscript elsewhere (including journals, edited volumes, websites, or blogs) without written permission from the journal’s editorial office.

Submissions must also comply with Article 4 of the Higher Education Council’s Directive on Scientific Research and Publication Ethics. The following are considered violations of scientific research and publication ethics:

Article 4 – Scientific Misconduct Includes:
a) Plagiarism: Presenting others' original ideas, methods, data, or works as one's own without proper citation.
b) Fabrication: Using non-existent or falsified data in research.
c) Falsification: Distorting research records or data, misrepresenting the use of tools or materials, or manipulating results to fit institutional or funding expectations.
ç) Duplicate Publication: Presenting the same research as separate publications for academic promotion.
d) Salami Slicing: Fragmenting a study inappropriately into multiple publications to inflate publication count.
e) Unjustified Authorship: Including individuals who did not contribute intellectually as authors or excluding those who did; making unauthorized changes to authorship lists.

Other Types of Ethical Violations Include:
a) Not acknowledging the support or contributions of institutions or individuals who aided the research.
b) Using unpublished theses or research without permission from the author.
c) Violating ethical standards in research involving human or animal subjects or patient rights.
ç) Violating legal or institutional regulations in biomedical or clinical studies involving humans.
d) Sharing the contents of a manuscript assigned for review without the author’s explicit consent.
e) Misusing resources, spaces, or equipment allocated for research purposes.
f) Making baseless, malicious, or deliberate accusations of ethical misconduct.
g) Publishing data obtained from participants without their informed consent or without institutional approval when required.
h) Harming animal welfare or ecological balance during research.
ı) Failing to obtain necessary written permissions from relevant authorities before commencing research.
i) Violating applicable national and international legal frameworks governing research.
j) Failing to inform relevant parties about potentially harmful research practices.
k) Misusing data obtained from others beyond the limits of granted permission or breaching data confidentiality.
l) Making false or misleading statements about research or publications during academic evaluations.