All submissions to Novus Orbis: Journal of Politics and International Relations are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process in accordance with international academic publishing standards.

The editorial evaluation process consists of the following stages:

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the editorial team.

At this stage, manuscripts are examined in terms of:

• compliance with the journal’s scope,
• academic quality,
• originality,
• methodological adequacy,
• language quality,
• formatting requirements,
• and compliance with publication ethics principles.

The editorial team may request technical corrections before proceeding to the next stage.

2. Plagiarism and Similarity Check

All manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software such as iThenticate and/or Turnitin prior to peer review.

Similarity reports are evaluated qualitatively by the editorial team. The journal does not rely solely on numerical similarity percentages.

Manuscripts containing plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, falsified information, or unethical academic conduct may be rejected at any stage of the evaluation process.

3. Desk Rejection

The editorial team may reject manuscripts before peer review if the submission:

• falls outside the scope of the journal,
• lacks sufficient academic quality,
• contains major methodological weaknesses,
• demonstrates inadequate language quality,
• violates publication ethics,
• or does not comply with the journal’s submission guidelines.

Desk rejection decisions are made by the editorial team.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial evaluation are sent to at least two independent reviewers under a double-blind peer review system.

Under this system:

• reviewers do not know the identity of the authors,
• authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

Reviewers are selected according to their academic expertise and research background.

5. Reviewer Reports and Revision Process

Based on reviewer evaluations, the editorial team may decide:

• to accept the manuscript,
• to request minor revisions,
• to request major revisions,
• or to reject the manuscript.

Authors are expected to submit revised versions together with a response letter explaining how reviewer comments were addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be sent to reviewers for re-evaluation when necessary.

6. Final Decision

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewer reports, editorial evaluations, and the journal’s publication policies.

The editorial team reserves the right to make minor editorial corrections to accepted manuscripts.

7. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit reasoned objections regarding editorial decisions by contacting the editorial office.

All appeals and complaints are evaluated in accordance with publication ethics principles and editorial procedures.

8. Editorial Independence

All editorial decisions are made independently by the editorial team.

Institutional affiliations, political considerations, financial interests, or external organisations do not influence the evaluation process.