Novus Orbis: Journal of Politics and International Relations is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against publication malpractice. Authors who submit papers to Novus Orbis: Journal of Politics and International Relations attest that their work is original and unpublished and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. In addition, authors confirm that their paper is their own; that it has not been copied or plagiarized, in whole or in part, from other works; and that they have disclosed actual or potential conflicts of interest with their work or partial benefits associated with it. The authors have also declared that the work complies with the Ethical Approval and has been conducted under internationally accepted ethical standards. If ethical misconduct is suspected, the Editorial Board will act in accordance with the relevant international rules of publication ethics.

The editorial and publication processes of the journal are shaped in accordance with the guidelines of the Council of Science Editors (CSE), Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), European Association of Science Editors (EASE), and National Information Standards Organization (NISO). The journal is in conformity with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (doaj.org/bestpractice).

All articles submitted to Novus Orbis: Journal of Politics and International Relations are subject to double-blind peer review. First of all, the articles that are examined by the editor regarding the purpose, scope of the journal and its conformity to the rules of writing are directed to the field editors. Field editors examine the summary, introduction, material/method, discussion and conclusion sections of the manuscript as well as its scientific and formal conformity to the writing rules of the journal. As a result of this review, manuscripts that are found suitable are sent to at least two external-independent peer reviewers by the field editors. The reviewers evaluate the study and prepare a report. The reviewers are expected to detail his/her negative opinions and reasons and make detailed explanations that will guide the author instead of answering only yes or no to the evaluation criteria. The decision to publish all articles submitted to the journal belongs to the editor-in-chief. However, editors shape these decisions in line with the reviewers’ recommendations. 

The Editors of Novus Orbis is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The Editors may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and subjected to such legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

The Editors must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor/co-editor, who may make use of appropriate software to examine the originality of the contents of the manuscript and after passing this test, manuscript is forwarded to two referees for blind peer review, and each of whom will make a recommendation to publish the manuscript in its present form or to modify or to reject the same. The review period will be from two weeks to one month (Maximum two months in extra ordinary circumstances).

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author.

Manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual merit without regard to authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

The Editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.

Promptness

In case, any reviewer feels that it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then the same must be communicated to the editor, so that the same could be sent to any other reviewer.

Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information.

Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editors’ attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others this must be appropriately cited or quoted.

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. 

Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or another substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.