Author Guidelines

1. Writing Rules and Author Guidelines

1.1. Aims and Scope

Cyberpolitik Journal: A Peer-Reviewed International E-Journal on Cyberpolitics, Cybersecurity and Human Rights is the first academic journal in Türkiye devoted to cyberpolitics and cybersecurity. Its mission is to contribute to the development of a field that is still in its formative stage within the international relations literature in Türkiye, while engaging with the wider international scholarly debate.

International relations are inherently dynamic, and technological developments have continually transformed the relationships among their actors, adding new issues and concepts to the discipline. The internet stands at the forefront of these developments. It belongs to a long technological lineage that can be traced back to the foundations of optics laid by Ibn al-Haytham, and since the 2000s it has accelerated the spread of technology on an unprecedented scale. As states and other actors have come to recognize the power of the internet, together with the opportunities and vulnerabilities it creates, a new era in international relations has emerged.

This era of cyber power has required new conceptual frameworks and security strategies that treat cyberspace as a domain alongside land, sea, air and space. Cybersecurity gained greater priority for governments and international organizations after incidents such as the distributed denial-of-service attacks against Estonia in 2007 and the Stuxnet operation, discovered in 2010, which sabotaged nuclear facilities in Iran. Since then, states have developed national cybersecurity policies and established military cyber units, partly in pursuit of lowering the costs of conflict. The use of cyber capabilities as part of hybrid warfare, as seen during Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, shows that the international community is likely to face such challenges with increasing frequency. This new domain of international relations calls for new ideas, theories and policies.

The journal aims to contribute to the discipline of international relations, nationally and internationally, by analyzing technological developments together with states’ political and security policies, legal systems and, above all, democratic structures. Its central purpose is to advance a better understanding of the relationship between cyberspace and international relations. While cyberpolitics is its core focus, the journal also critically examines related issues of society, security, peace, international law and human rights.

The journal welcomes theoretical, empirical and policy-oriented contributions on topics including, but not limited to:

• cyberpolitics and international relations theory in the digital age;
• cybersecurity governance, cyber defense, cyber deterrence and cyber conflict;
• cyber power, hybrid warfare and the military uses of cyberspace;
• internet governance, digital sovereignty and global digital policy;
• information warfare, disinformation and propaganda;
• artificial intelligence and emerging technologies in world politics;
• human rights, privacy, data protection and freedom of expression online;
• democracy, digital citizenship and political participation in the digital age;
• international law, cyber law and the regulation of digital platforms;
• digital technologies and peace and conflict studies.

 1.2. Types of Manuscripts Accepted

The journal accepts the manuscript types listed below. Word counts include the abstract, notes and references but exclude tables and figures.

Manuscript type	Length (words)	Description
Research article	4,000–10,000	Original empirical, theoretical or conceptual research making a clear scholarly contribution. Subject to double-blind peer review.
Review article	4,000–10,000	Systematic or critical review of the literature on a defined topic, offering synthesis and new directions. Subject to double-blind peer review.
Policy analysis / Opinions	2,000–4,000	Evidence-based analysis of a current policy issue with clear implications for decision-makers. Subject to double-blind peer review.
Research note	3,000–5,000	Short report of preliminary findings, new data sets or methodological innovations. Subject to double-blind peer review.
Interviews	2,000–4,000
Book and article review	1,000–2,000	Critical evaluation of a recently published book/ article (normally within the past three years). Reviewed by the editors; not subject to external peer review.

 

Manuscript types that are not subject to external peer review are identified as such in the published version, in line with transparency principles.

1.3. Originality and Scholarly Contribution

Submitted manuscripts must be original, must not have been published previously, and must not be under consideration by another journal. Authors must clearly state the contribution of their work to the existing literature in the introduction.

1.4. Manuscript Preparation and Formatting

Manuscripts must be prepared according to the following specifications:

• File format: Microsoft Word (.docx). PDF files are not accepted for submission.
• Page layout: A4 paper, 2.5 cm margins on all sides.
• Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt for the main text; 10 pt for tables, figure notes and footnotes.
• Line spacing:5 lines for the main text; single spacing for tables and block quotations.
• Paragraphs: first-line indent of 1.25 cm; no additional spacing between paragraphs.
• Headings: follow the five APA 7 heading levels; headings must not be numbered unless the structure of the argument requires it.
• Page numbers: at the top right of every page.
• Notes: footnotes should be used sparingly and only for substantive explanations, not for citations.
• Files to upload: (1) an anonymized main manuscript; (2) a separate title page; (3) any supplementary files.

1.5. Article Structure, Abstract and Keywords

Research articles should normally include the following parts: title; abstract; keywords; introduction; literature review and/or theoretical framework; method (where applicable); analysis or findings; discussion; conclusion; references; and appendices (if any).

Title

The title should be concise, informative and no longer than 20 words.

Abstract

Each manuscript must include an abstract of 150–250 words stating the research question, purpose, method, main findings and contribution. The abstract must not contain citations or abbreviations that are not defined.

Keywords

Authors must provide 5–7 keywords that reflect the content of the manuscript and facilitate indexing.

Manuscripts in Turkish

Manuscripts written in Turkish must also include an English title, an English abstract and English keywords.

1.6. Citation and Referencing Style: APA 7th Edition

All citations and references must comply with APA 7. Authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of every reference. Every in-text citation must appear in the reference list, and every reference must be cited in the text.

In-text citations

• One author: (Nye, 2011) or Nye (2011).
• Two authors: (Rid & Buchanan, 2015); in narrative form: Rid and Buchanan (2015).
• Three or more authors: (Author et al., Year) from the first citation onward.
• Group authors: (United Nations [UN], 2021) at first citation, then (UN, 2021).
• Direct quotations must include a page or paragraph number: (Author, Year, p. 25).
• Secondary citations should be avoided; where unavoidable: (Original Author, Year, as cited in Citing Author, Year).

Reference list

• References are listed alphabetically by the surname of the first author, with a hanging indent of 1.27 cm.
• Titles of articles and books are written in sentence case; journal names are written in title case and italicized.
• DOIs must be presented as URLs (https://doi.org/xxxxx) whenever available. Retrieval dates are used only for content designed to change over time.
• Sources in languages other than the language of the manuscript retain their original titles; a translation of the title in square brackets is recommended.
• Turkish characters (ç, ğ, ı, ö, ş, ü) must be preserved in author names and titles.

Examples (format only):

Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year). Title of the article in sentence case. Journal Name in Title Case, Volume(Issue), pages. https://doi.org/xxxxx

Author, A. A. (Year). Title of the book in sentence case (2nd ed.). Publisher.

Editor, E. E. (Ed.). (Year). Title of the edited volume. Publisher.

Organization Name. (Year, Month Day). Title of the report or web page. URL

Citing artificial intelligence outputs

Outputs generated by AI tools are not scholarly sources and must not be used as evidence for factual claims. Where an AI output is itself the object of analysis or is quoted, it must be cited in accordance with current APA guidance, in the general form: Developer. (Year). Name of model (Version) [Large language model]. URL. The prompt used should be described in the text or in an appendix.

1.7. Tables, Figures and Supplementary Materials

• Tables and figures are numbered consecutively in bold (Table 1, Figure 1), with an italicized title on the line below, both placed above the table or figure, following APA 7.
• Each table and figure must be cited in the text before it appears.
• Notes and sources are placed directly beneath the table or figure, beginning with
• Figures must be legible in grayscale and submitted at a minimum resolution of 300 dpi; editable source files may be requested.
• Material reproduced from other sources requires written permission from the copyright holder, which authors must obtain before submission.
• Figures or images generated or modified with AI tools must be disclosed in the caption and in the AI Use Declaration (see Section 4.7).
• Supplementary materials (data sets, codebooks, interview protocols, extended tables) are uploaded as separate files and are subject to peer review.

1.8. Academic Writing and Language Standards

Manuscripts must be written in clear, coherent and grammatically correct academic language. Terminology must be used consistently, and abbreviations must be defined at first use. Manuscripts in English may use either American or British spelling, provided that it is applied consistently throughout the manuscript.

Authors should use inclusive and non-discriminatory language. Generalizations about national, ethnic, religious, gender or other groups must be avoided unless they are supported by evidence and are relevant to the argument. Manuscripts that do not meet basic language standards are returned to authors before peer review (see Section 4).

1.9. Anonymization Requirements

To protect the integrity of double-blind peer review, the main manuscript must not contain any information that could reveal the identity of the authors. Authors must:

• remove names, affiliations, ORCID iDs, acknowledgments, funding details and contact information from the main manuscript;
• refer to their own previous work in the third person, or replace such citations with "(Author, Year)" in the text and list them as "Author (Year)" in the reference list without further details;
• remove identifying information from file properties and document metadata;
• place all declarations that may reveal identity (ethics approval, funding, conflicts of interest, author contributions, language assistance, AI use) on the separate title page during the review process.

The title page must include: the title; the names, affiliations, ORCID iDs and email addresses of all authors; the corresponding author; word count; and all required statements and declarations listed in Section 1.10. After acceptance, the declarations are moved into the published article.

1.10. Required Statements and Declarations

Every submission must include the following statements on the title page. The published article will contain these statements after the conclusion and before the references. Templates are provided in the Appendix.

Statement	Content required
Ethics statement	Whether ethics committee approval was required; if so, the name of the committee, date and approval number; confirmation of informed consent (Section 2.5).
Conflict of interest	Any financial, personal, institutional or other interests that could influence the work, or a statement that none exist (Section 2.9).
Funding	All sources of funding, including grant numbers, or a statement that no funding was received (Section 2.10).
Author contributions	The contribution of each author, preferably using the CRediT taxonomy (Section 2.8). Not required for single-author manuscripts.
Data availability	Where and how the data supporting the findings can be accessed, or the reasons why they cannot be shared (Section 2.11).
Language assistance	Any translation, proofreading or language-editing assistance received (Section 4.3).
AI Use Declaration	Whether and how AI tools were used, following the template in Section 4.10.
Acknowledgments (optional)	Individuals or institutions that contributed but do not meet authorship criteria.

1.11. Submission Checklist

Before submitting, authors should confirm that:

☐  the manuscript falls within the aims and scope of the journal and is not under consideration elsewhere;

☐  the manuscript complies with the length limits for its type (Section 1.2);

☐  the abstract (150–250 words) and 5–7 keywords are provided in the required languages;

☐  all citations and references follow APA 7, and every reference has been checked against the original source;

☐  DOIs are included as URLs wherever available;

☐  tables and figures are numbered, titled and cited in the text, and permissions have been obtained for reproduced material;

☐  the main manuscript is fully anonymized, including file metadata;

☐  a separate title page with all author information and declarations is uploaded;

☐  the AI Use Declaration and the language assistance declaration are complete;

☐  ethics approval documents are available where applicable;

☐  all authors have approved the final version and agreed to its submission;

☐  all authors have registered ORCID iDs.

 

 

2. Publication Ethics and Editorial Policies

2.1. Commitment to International Publication Ethics

Cyberpolitik Journal adheres to internationally recognized principles of research integrity, editorial independence, transparency and responsible scholarly publishing. Its policies are informed by the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE); the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing jointly issued by COPE, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME); the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Council of Science Editors (CSE), where applicable to the social sciences; and the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science (2021).

Allegations of misconduct are handled in accordance with COPE flowcharts and guidance. These obligations apply to all parties involved in the publication process: authors, editors, reviewers and the publisher.

2.2. Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are expected to:

• submit only original work that has not been published or submitted elsewhere;
• report their research honestly, accurately and completely, without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate manipulation of data;
• acknowledge all sources properly and verify every reference against the original source;
• obtain ethics approval and informed consent where required;
• disclose all conflicts of interest, sources of funding, language assistance and AI use;
• ensure that all and only those who meet authorship criteria are listed as authors;
• cooperate with the editorial office in responding to reviewer comments and to any ethical inquiry;
• notify the journal promptly of any significant error discovered in their published work and cooperate in its correction or retraction.

2.3. Ethical Responsibilities of Editors and the Editorial Board

Editors and members of the Editorial Board are expected to:

• evaluate manuscripts solely on their scholarly merit, relevance to the scope and methodological quality, without regard to the authors' nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, political views or institutional affiliation;
• keep all information about submitted manuscripts confidential;
• ensure a fair, timely and unbiased peer review process;
• declare any conflict of interest and withdraw from handling manuscripts where such a conflict exists;
• not use unpublished material from submitted manuscripts for their own research without the authors' written consent;
• act on allegations of misconduct in accordance with COPE guidance;
• publish corrections, retractions and expressions of concern when necessary.

Submissions by editors and Editorial Board members

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors or Editorial Board members are handled by an editor who has no conflict of interest with the submission. The submitting editor is excluded from all stages of the evaluation and has no access to reviewer identities or reports. Such articles are subject to the same review standards as all other submissions.

2.4. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. In particular, reviewers should:

• accept invitations only for manuscripts within their area of expertise and which they can evaluate within the review period;
• treat manuscripts and review materials as strictly confidential and not share them with third parties, including AI tools (see Section 4.11);
• declare any conflict of interest and decline the review where impartiality may be compromised;
• provide objective, constructive and well-reasoned evaluations, free from personal criticism or hostile language;
• not attempt to identify the authors or contact them directly;
• not use information obtained during the review for personal advantage;
• notify the editors of any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or other ethical concern;
• not request citations to their own work unless such citations are scientifically justified.

2.5. Research Ethics and Human Participants

Research involving human participants, including surveys, interviews, focus groups, experiments, observation and the use of identifiable personal data, must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee before data collection began. The ethics statement must include the name of the committee, the date of the decision and the approval number.

Authors must confirm that informed consent was obtained from all participants and that participants' anonymity and confidentiality have been protected. Research using publicly available online data (for example, social media content) must address the privacy expectations of the individuals concerned and avoid publishing information that could identify them. Where ethics approval is not required, authors must explain why.

2.6. Plagiarism, Fabrication and Falsification

All submissions are screened for similarity using Turnitin/ iThenticate before peer review. A similarity report alone does not determine plagiarism; the editors assess the nature and context of any overlap. As a general guide, an overall similarity index above 15%, or more than 3% from a single source (excluding the reference list and properly quoted material), triggers a detailed editorial review.

The journal treats the following as research misconduct:

• Plagiarism: presenting another person's ideas, text, data or images as one's own without appropriate attribution, including self-plagiarism (text recycling) without disclosure.
• Fabrication: inventing data, findings, sources or references.
• Falsification: manipulating research materials, data, images or processes, or selectively omitting results, so that the research is not accurately represented.
• Citation manipulation: citing sources solely to increase citation counts of an author or journal, or citing references that do not support the claim made.

Suspected misconduct is handled in accordance with COPE flowcharts. Depending on its severity, outcomes may include rejection, notification of the authors' institutions, correction or retraction, and a ban on future submissions for a defined period.

2.7. Duplicate and Redundant Publication

Publishing the same research, or substantially overlapping research, in more than one outlet without disclosure is not permitted. Splitting a single study into several articles ("salami slicing") without clear justification is also considered redundant publication.

Translations

A translation of a previously published article may be considered only in exceptional cases, with the written permission of the original publisher and with a clear statement identifying the original publication.

2.8. Authorship and Contributor Responsibilities

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, data collection, analysis or interpretation of the research; who have drafted or critically revised the manuscript; who have approved the final version; and who agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

• Author contributions should be described using the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy).
• Gift, guest or ghost authorship is not acceptable.
• Individuals who contributed but do not meet authorship criteria should be named in the acknowledgments.
• The corresponding author is responsible for communication with the journal and for ensuring that all co-authors approve the submission and any revisions.
• Any change in authorship (addition, removal or reordering) after submission requires a written explanation and the signed consent of all authors. Changes after acceptance are permitted only in exceptional circumstances.
• AI tools cannot be listed as authors (Section 4.6).
• All authors must provide an ORCID iD.

2.9. Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest exists when financial, personal, political, institutional or professional considerations could compromise, or appear to compromise, the objectivity of a person involved in the publication process.

Authors must disclose all relevant interests in the conflict-of-interest statement. Reviewers must decline invitations where they have a close relationship with the authors, have collaborated with them in the past three years, work at the same institution, or have a competing interest in the subject matter. Editors must withdraw from handling manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest, and the manuscript is reassigned to another editor.

2.10. Research Funding and Financial Disclosure

All sources of funding for the research and for the preparation of the manuscript must be disclosed, including the name of the funding body and the grant number. Authors must state whether the funder had any role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, writing or the decision to publish. Where no funding was received, this must be stated explicitly.

2.11. Research Data Integrity and Transparency

The journal encourages authors to make the data underlying their findings available in recognized public repositories, in line with the principles of open science, unless legal, ethical or confidentiality constraints prevent it. A data availability statement is required for all research articles.

Authors must retain raw data and research materials for at least five years after publication and make them available to the editors upon reasonable request. Qualitative data that could identify participants must not be shared without consent.

2.12. Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern

The journal is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record and follows the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

• Correction (erratum/corrigendum): published when an error affects part of an article but does not invalidate its overall findings. The correction is linked to the original article.
• Retraction: published when there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable owing to misconduct or honest error, or in cases of plagiarism, duplicate publication or serious ethical violations. Retracted articles remain accessible but are clearly marked as "Retracted", and the retraction notice states the reasons.
• Expression of concern: issued when there are well-founded concerns but the investigation is ongoing or inconclusive.

Articles are not removed from the journal website except in rare cases involving legal obligations or serious risks, in which case a notice remains in place of the article.

2.13. Complaints and Appeals

Complaints about the editorial process, publication ethics or the conduct of editors, reviewers or authors should be sent in writing to the editorial office at cyberpolitikjournal@gmail.com . Complaints are acknowledged within 15 days and handled in accordance with COPE guidance. Complaints about the Editor-in-Chief are referred to fuad.jomma@usz.edu.pl . Appeals against editorial decisions follow the procedure in Section 3.11.

2.14. Editorial Independence and Academic Freedom

Editorial decisions are made solely by the editors on the basis of scholarly merit. The publisher, owning institution, funders and advertisers have no influence on editorial decisions. The journal upholds academic freedom and welcomes diverse theoretical, methodological and political perspectives, provided that they are presented in a scholarly manner. The views expressed in published articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal or its editors.

2.15. Open Access, Copyright and Licensing

Cyberpolitik Journal is a fully open access journal. All articles are freely available to readers immediately upon publication, without subscription or registration.

• License: Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. The license terms are displayed on every article and linked to the Creative Commons website.
• Copyright: Authors retain the copyright of their work and grant the journal the right of first publication.
• Self-archiving: Authors may deposit the submitted, accepted and published versions of their articles in institutional or subject repositories, with a citation and link to the published version.
• Author fees: The journal does not charge any article processing, submission or other fees. Should this change, the fees and any waiver policy will be announced in advance and will not influence editorial decisions.

2.16. Digital Preservation and Archiving

To ensure permanent access to published content, the journal's articles are archived through PKP. Each article is assigned a DOI through Crossref, ensuring persistent identification and citation linking. The journal is indexed in DRJI, SIS, Google Scholar, JournalTOCs, ESJI and ISI.

 

 

3. Peer Review and Editorial Decision-Making Process

The table below summarizes the stages of the evaluation process and the standard time frames. Details are set out in the sections that follow.

Stage	Standard time frame	Responsible
Initial editorial screening	Within 14 days	Editor-in-Chief or designated editor
Reviewer invitation response	11 days from invitation	Invited reviewer
Reviewer evaluation	41 calendar days from acceptance of invitation	Reviewer
Third review (if required)	41 calendar days	Third reviewer
Editorial decision	Within 61 days after reports are received	Editorial Board
Author revision	Maximum 63 calendar days	Author(s)
Appeal submission	Within 43 days of the decision	Author(s)

 

3.1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor. The assessment examines the manuscript's relevance to the journal's scope, originality, scholarly contribution, methodological quality, language standards, ethical compliance, anonymization, similarity report and adherence to the author guidelines.

At this stage the manuscript may be:

1. sent to external peer review;
2. returned to the authors for technical corrections (formatting, anonymization, missing declarations) before review;
3. rejected without external review (desk rejection), with a brief explanation of the reasons.

Authors are informed of the outcome of the initial screening within 14 days of submission.

3.2. Reviewer Selection by the Editorial Board

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are referred to the Editorial Board, which selects at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise. Reviewers are external to the editorial team wherever possible and must have no conflict of interest with the authors. Reviewers must hold a doctoral degree or equivalent research experience in the relevant field.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers or request the exclusion of specific individuals, giving reasons. The editors are not obliged to follow these suggestions. Invited reviewers are asked to respond to the invitation within 11 days; if no response is received, another reviewer is invited.

3.3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Cyberpolitik Journal follows a double-blind peer review system. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout and after the evaluation process. Review reports are not published with the article, and reviewers are not named in connection with any specific manuscript.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using the journal's review form, which addresses originality, contribution to the literature, theoretical framework, methodology, quality of analysis, structure, language, use of sources and compliance with ethical standards. Reviewers also provide written comments for the authors and, optionally, confidential comments for the editors.

3.4. Reviewer Evaluation Period: 41 Days

Reviewers are allocated 41 calendar days to complete their evaluations, starting from the date on which they formally accept the review invitation. The 41-day period does not include the time required to invite reviewers or obtain their acceptance.

The editorial office sends a reminder 11 days before the deadline. Reviewers who anticipate difficulties meeting the deadline should inform the editorial office promptly. The Editorial Board may grant an extension of up to 21 days in exceptional circumstances or appoint another reviewer. Reviewers who do not respond after the deadline are replaced.

3.5. Third Reviewer in Cases of Substantial Disagreement

When the two reviewers provide substantially conflicting assessments or recommendations (for example, one recommending acceptance and the other rejection), the Editorial Board may appoint a third independent reviewer. The third reviewer is given the same 41-day evaluation period.

The third review contributes to the overall assessment but does not automatically determine the final decision. Decisions are not made by counting reviewer recommendations; the editors weigh the reasoning of each report.

3.6. Editorial Decisions

On the basis of the reviewer reports, the Editorial Board may issue one of the following decisions:

Decision	Meaning
Accept	The manuscript is accepted in its current form, subject only to copyediting.
Accept subject to minor revisions	The manuscript requires limited changes that can be verified by the editors without further review.
Major revisions required	The manuscript requires substantial changes and will normally be returned to the reviewers.
Reject	The manuscript is not suitable for publication. Resubmission of a rejected manuscript is not considered unless invited by the editors.

 

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection rests with the Editorial Board, taking into consideration the reviewers' recommendations and the manuscript's scholarly quality. Decisions are communicated to authors together with the anonymized reviewer comments.

3.7. Author Revision Period: Maximum 63 Days

Authors are allowed a maximum of 63 calendar days to submit revised manuscripts following an editorial decision requesting revisions. For minor revisions, authors are encouraged to resubmit within 41 days.

Revised submissions must include:

1. a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment, explaining how it has been addressed or, where it has not, why not;
2. a revised manuscript in which changes are clearly identified (by tracked changes or highlighting);
3. a clean, anonymized version of the revised manuscript.

Authors who need more time may request a single extension of up to 21 days before the deadline, giving reasons. Revised manuscripts not received within the permitted period (including any extension) are withdrawn from the evaluation process and may be considered only as new submissions.

3.8. Re-evaluation of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. Reviewers of revised manuscripts are asked to complete their evaluation within 21 days. The Editorial Board determines whether the revisions adequately address the concerns raised. As a rule, a manuscript may go through no more than two rounds of revision; if the concerns remain unresolved after the final round, the manuscript is rejected.

3.9. Final Editorial Decision and Publication

The Editorial Board makes the final publication decision. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout and proofreading. Authors receive proofs and must return any corrections within 43 days; only typographical and factual errors may be corrected at this stage.

Accepted articles may be published online ahead of their assignment to an issue (early view).

3.10. Delays and Withdrawal of Manuscripts

If the evaluation is delayed beyond the standard time frames, the editorial office informs the authors of the reason for the delay. Authors may withdraw their manuscript at any stage before acceptance by submitting a written request. Withdrawal after acceptance is permitted only in exceptional cases and requires a written justification approved by the Editorial Board.

3.11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned written request to the editorial office within 21 days of the decision. The appeal must explain specifically why the decision is considered to be wrong; disagreement with the outcome alone is not sufficient grounds.

• Appeals are assessed by an editor who was not involved in the original decision, who may seek the opinion of an additional independent reviewer.
• Authors are informed of the outcome 43 of receipt of the appeal.
• Only one appeal per manuscript is considered, and the decision on the appeal is final.
• The manuscript must not be submitted to another journal while the appeal is under consideration.

Complaints are handled in accordance with Section 2.13.

 

 

4. Language Proficiency, Translation and Artificial Intelligence Policy

4.1. Academic Language Standards

All submitted manuscripts must demonstrate an appropriate level of academic language proficiency, clarity, coherence and terminological consistency. Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscripts meet the linguistic and scholarly standards required for publication.

4.2. Assessment of Language Quality

The journal assesses the language quality of the manuscript itself rather than the credentials of the authors. Authors are not required to submit diplomas or language test certificates.

Manuscripts whose language prevents a fair scholarly evaluation are returned to the authors at the initial screening stage, with a request for language editing before peer review. Reviewers may also recommend language editing as part of their evaluation. The final acceptance of a manuscript is conditional on its meeting the journal's language standards.

The journal does not provide language-editing services and does not require authors to use any particular service. The use of a language-editing service does not guarantee acceptance.

4.3. Translation and Language-Editing Declaration

Authors who receive assistance with translation, proofreading or language editing must disclose the nature of that assistance on the title page. The declaration should identify:

• the type of assistance received (translation, proofreading, language editing);
• whether it was provided by a person, a professional service, a software application or an AI system;
• the parts of the manuscript concerned.

Where the assistance was provided by an AI system, it must also be reported in the AI Use Declaration. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy and academic quality of the submitted manuscript, including the faithfulness of any translation to their intended meaning.

4.4. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Academic Writing and Research

Cyberpolitik Journal permits the responsible use of artificial intelligence tools in academic research, manuscript preparation and scholarly writing. The use of artificial intelligence is not, in itself, a reason for rejection. However, all authors who use generative AI tools must submit a transparent AI Use Declaration explaining how artificial intelligence contributed to the preparation of the manuscript.

Scope of the disclosure requirement

The disclosure requirement applies to the use of generative AI tools (for example, large language models, AI chatbots, AI translation that rewrites text, and image-generation tools), whether to generate, rewrite, translate, summarize or analyze content.

Standard tools that only correct spelling, grammar or punctuation without generating or substantially rewriting content (for example, the built-in spell checker of a word processor), reference management software and standard statistical software do not require a detailed declaration. A brief mention in the AI Use Declaration is sufficient. Where in doubt, authors should disclose.

4.5. Mandatory AI Use Declaration

The AI Use Declaration must clearly specify:

a. AI applications used

The names of all AI applications, platforms or systems used in preparing the manuscript, including the developer and the version or model where identifiable, and the period of use.

b. Purpose of AI use

The specific purposes for which AI tools were employed, such as:

• language editing and proofreading;
• translation;
• literature searching and research assistance;
• summarization of academic materials;
• research design and methodological assistance;
• data organization, processing or analysis;
• coding and computational analysis;
• development of tables, figures or visual materials;
• structural organization of the manuscript;
• drafting or revising particular sections;
• other clearly specified research-related activities.

c. Extent and nature of AI assistance

Authors must explain how AI tools were used, which stages of the research or writing process involved AI assistance, and which parts of the manuscript were affected. Where AI was used for data analysis or coding, the method must also be described in the methodology section in sufficient detail to allow replication, including the prompts used where they are relevant to the results.

d. Human verification and academic responsibility

Authors must confirm that they have critically reviewed and verified all AI-assisted content, including factual statements, citations, references, data interpretations and analytical conclusions. Every reference must be checked against the original source; references suggested by AI tools must not be included unless the authors have personally consulted them.

e. Research integrity and confidentiality

Authors must ensure that AI use does not compromise research integrity, intellectual originality, confidentiality, privacy or applicable ethical obligations. In particular, personal data of research participants, confidential interview material and unpublished data of third parties must not be entered into AI tools that do not guarantee data protection.

4.6. AI Authorship and Academic Accountability

Consistent with the COPE position statement on authorship and AI tools, artificial intelligence systems cannot be listed as authors or co-authors, and cannot be cited as authors. AI tools cannot assume responsibility for the accuracy, originality or integrity of a scholarly publication, cannot declare conflicts of interest and cannot enter into copyright or licensing agreements.

The human authors retain full responsibility for all submitted content, including material prepared with AI assistance.

4.7. AI-Generated Images and Visual Materials

Images, figures or other visual materials generated or substantially modified by AI tools may be used only when they are clearly labeled as such in the caption and reported in the AI Use Declaration. AI tools must not be used to create, alter or enhance images that are presented as empirical evidence (for example, screenshots, photographs or documents serving as data). The editors may request the original, unaltered files.

4.8. Non-Disclosure and Misrepresentation of AI Use

Failure to disclose AI assistance, incomplete or misleading AI declarations, or the use of AI to fabricate data, references, findings or scholarly evidence may result in rejection of the manuscript.

Where such practices are identified after publication, the journal initiates an investigation in accordance with COPE guidance and may take appropriate corrective action, including correction, expression of concern or retraction.

4.9. Placement of the AI Use Declaration

During peer review, the AI Use Declaration is placed on the separate title page so as not to compromise anonymity. In the published article, it appears under the heading "Declaration of Artificial Intelligence Use", after the conclusion and before the references, together with the other declarations.

4.10. AI Use Declaration Template

Declaration of Artificial Intelligence Use The author(s) declare that the following artificial intelligence tools were used during the preparation of this manuscript: AI tool(s) and model(s): [Specify names, developers and versions, where available] Purpose(s) of use: [Describe the specific tasks performed] Stages of use: [Identify the research or writing stages in which AI assistance was employed] Extent of assistance: [Explain the nature and scope of AI-generated or AI-assisted contributions and the parts of the manuscript affected] Human verification: [Explain how the AI-assisted outputs, including references, were reviewed and verified] The author(s) confirm that all AI-assisted content has been critically reviewed and that they assume full responsibility for the originality, accuracy, scholarly integrity and final content of the manuscript.

 

Where only basic spelling and grammar tools were used:

"Only standard spelling and grammar correction tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript. No generative artificial intelligence tools were used."

 

Where no AI tools have been used:

"No artificial intelligence tools were used in the research, preparation or writing of this manuscript."

4.11. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers and Editors

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Consequently:

• Reviewers and editors must not upload submitted manuscripts, or any part of them, including figures, data or review correspondence, to AI tools that do not guarantee confidentiality and that may store or use the content for training.
• Reviewers must not use AI tools to generate the substance of their evaluation. The assessment of the manuscript's originality, methodology and contribution must reflect the reviewer's own expert judgment.
• Limited use of AI tools to improve the language of a review report that the reviewer has written is permitted, provided that no manuscript content is entered and that the use is disclosed to the editorial office.
• Editors must not rely on AI tools to make editorial decisions.

Reviewers and editors remain fully responsible for the content of their reports and decisions.

4.12. Use of AI-Detection Tools by the Journal

The journal may use similarity-check and AI-detection tools as part of its screening procedures. Because such tools are known to produce false positives, particularly for authors writing in a second language, the output of an AI-detection tool is never the sole basis for an editorial decision. Where concerns arise, the editors consult the authors and assess the manuscript as a whole before taking any action.

 

 

5. Research Integrity, Transparency and Publication Standards

5.1. Authorship Eligibility and Contributor Roles

Authorship is reserved for individuals who meet the criteria set out in Section 2.8. The journal uses the CRediT taxonomy, which distinguishes the following contributor roles: conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; funding acquisition; investigation; methodology; project administration; resources; software; supervision; validation; visualization; writing (original draft); and writing (review and editing). Authors should specify the roles of each contributor in the author contributions statement.

5.2. Research Data Availability and Transparency

Every research article must include a data availability statement in one of the following forms:

• the data are openly available in a named repository, with a DOI or persistent link;
• the data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request;
• the data cannot be shared owing to legal, ethical or confidentiality restrictions, with an explanation;
• no new data were created or analyzed in this study (for theoretical or conceptual articles).

5.3. Methodological Rigor and Reproducibility

Manuscripts must describe their methods with sufficient clarity to allow evaluation and, where applicable, replication. Empirical studies should specify the research design, case or sample selection, data sources, data collection procedures and methods of analysis. Qualitative studies should explain the coding and interpretive procedures; quantitative studies should report the statistical tests used and their assumptions. Theoretical and conceptual studies should make their assumptions, concepts and analytical steps explicit. The limitations of the study must be acknowledged.

5.4. Research Ethics Approval and Informed Consent

The requirements set out in Section 2.5 apply. The ethics approval document must be uploaded with the submission or made available to the editors upon request. Where informed consent was obtained, authors must indicate whether it was written or oral and how it was documented.

5.5. Protection of Personal and Sensitive Data

Authors must comply with applicable data protection legislation, including Law No. 6698 on the Protection of Personal Data (KVKK) of Türkiye and, where applicable, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Personal data must be anonymized or pseudonymized before publication. Particular care must be taken in research on cybersecurity incidents, online behavior and digital platforms, where publishing identifiable information, such as user names, IP addresses or system vulnerabilities, could cause harm.

Responsible disclosure

Manuscripts that report previously unknown security vulnerabilities must demonstrate that responsible disclosure procedures have been followed and that publication will not facilitate harm. The editors may request the removal of technical details that could be misused.

5.6. Conflicts of Interest and Funding Transparency

The requirements set out in Sections 2.9 and 2.10 apply. Statements on conflicts of interest and funding are published with every article.

5.7. Responsible Citation and Reference Practices

• Authors must cite sources that they have personally consulted, and every citation must accurately reflect the content of the cited source.
• Citations should be relevant to the argument; excessive self-citation and citation of the journal's own articles without scholarly justification are not acceptable.
• Editors and reviewers must not request citations to their own work or to the journal unless such citations are scientifically justified.
• Retracted publications must not be cited as valid evidence; where they are cited, their retracted status must be indicated.
• Fabricated, non-existent or inaccurately attributed references, including those generated by AI tools, constitute research misconduct (Section 2.6).

5.8. Ethical Use of Digital Research Tools

The use of web scraping, automated data collection, social media analytics, network analysis and similar digital research methods must comply with the terms of service of the relevant platforms, applicable law and research ethics standards. Authors must describe the tools used, the period of data collection and the measures taken to protect the privacy of individuals whose data were collected. The requirements of Section 4 apply to AI tools.

5.9. Academic Freedom and Non-Discrimination

The journal is committed to academic freedom and to an inclusive scholarly environment. Editorial decisions are not influenced by the nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, political beliefs, institutional affiliation, career stage or first language of the authors. The journal regularly reviews its policies to ensure that they do not create exclusionary barriers for authors, reviewers or readers.

5.10. Post-Publication Responsibilities

The journal welcomes post-publication scholarly discussion. Readers may submit comments or responses to published articles, which are subject to editorial review and, where appropriate, may be published together with a reply from the authors. Concerns about published articles are handled in accordance with Section 2.12. Authors have a continuing responsibility to report errors in their published work.

5.11. Editorial Transparency and Accountability

The journal publishes on its website the full names and affiliations of the members of its editorial team and Editorial Board, the contact details of the editorial office, its ownership and sources of revenue, and its policies on peer review, ethics, licensing and fees. Members of the Editorial Board are recognized experts in the journal's field who have agreed to serve.

5.12. Periodic Review of Publication Policies

These policies are reviewed by the Editorial Board at least once a year and updated in line with developments in publication ethics, open science and technology, in particular artificial intelligence. Each revision is dated and versioned. Manuscripts are evaluated under the policies in force at the time of submission.

 

Appendix: Declaration Templates

The following templates may be used on the title page. Authors should adapt them to their circumstances.

Ethics Statement

This study was approved by the [name of committee] (decision date: [date]; approval number: [number]). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. or: This study did not require ethics committee approval because [reason].

 

Conflict of Interest

The author(s) declare no conflict of interest. or: [Describe the relevant interests.]

 

Funding

This research was supported by [funding body] under grant number [number]. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation or the decision to publish. or: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency.

 

Author Contributions (CRediT)

[Author 1]: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft. [Author 2]: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review and editing. All authors approved the final version.

 

Data Availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are openly available in [repository] at [DOI/URL]. or: No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

 

Language Assistance

[Type of assistance] was provided by [a person / a professional service / software / an AI system] for [parts of the manuscript]. or: No translation or language-editing assistance was received.

 

 

 

International Standards and Reference Frameworks

Cyberpolitik Journal's editorial and publication policies are informed by the following documents:

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).

Committee on Publication Ethics. (2023, February 13). Authorship and AI tools [Position statement]. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools

Committee on Publication Ethics, Directory of Open Access Journals, Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association, & World Association of Medical Editors. (2022). Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing (Version 4). https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12

COPE Council. (2017). COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (Version 2). Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9

Council of Science Editors. (n.d.). Recommendations for promoting integrity in scientific journal publications. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2026). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/

UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO recommendation on open science. https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546