Qubahan Political Journal (QPJ) follows a structured, transparent, and academically independent publishing process designed to ensure the originality, scholarly quality, methodological rigor, ethical integrity, and relevance of every article considered for publication.

Editorial decisions are based exclusively on academic merit, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, clarity, and contribution to knowledge. Financial or commercial considerations do not influence peer review or editorial decisions.

1. Manuscript submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's online submission system.

By submitting a manuscript, authors confirm that:

• The work is original.

• The manuscript is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal.

• All authors have approved the submission.

• All listed authors meet appropriate authorship criteria.

• Required permissions, ethical approvals, and participant consent have been obtained where applicable.

• Funding sources and competing interests have been disclosed.

• The manuscript complies with the journal's authorship, publication ethics, copyright, and generative artificial intelligence policies.

Incomplete submissions may be returned to authors before editorial assessment.

2. Administrative and technical screening

The Editorial Office conducts an initial administrative check before academic evaluation.

The manuscript is examined for:

• Completeness of submission files and metadata

• Compliance with author guidelines

• Author names and institutional affiliations

• Corresponding-author information

• Abstract and keywords

• References, tables, and figures

• Required declarations

• Funding disclosure

• Conflict-of-interest disclosure

• Data availability where applicable

• Ethical approval and informed consent where applicable

• Generative artificial intelligence disclosure where applicable

Administrative screening does not constitute academic acceptance.

3. Scope, originality and research-integrity screening

A qualified editor conducts an initial scholarly assessment to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for QPJ.

The assessment considers:

• Alignment with the journal's aims and scope

• Scholarly relevance

• Originality and potential contribution

• Methodological appropriateness

• Quality of academic writing

• Ethical compliance

• Adequacy of citations and scholarly context

• Potential plagiarism or inappropriate textual overlap

• Duplicate or redundant publication

• Possible data, image, citation, or authorship concerns

Similarity-detection software may be used as an editorial screening tool. Similarity reports are interpreted by editors in context; no numerical similarity score alone determines whether plagiarism has occurred.

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review when it is clearly outside the journal's scope, lacks sufficient scholarly quality, contains major methodological deficiencies, fails essential ethical requirements, or presents serious research-integrity concerns.

This decision is commonly referred to as an editorial or desk rejection.

4. Assignment to an academic editor

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to an Editor or Section Editor with appropriate subject expertise.

The assigned editor evaluates the manuscript independently and oversees the peer-review process.

Editors must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. An editor must not handle a manuscript when a relationship with the authors, institutions, research, or subject matter could reasonably compromise impartiality.

Manuscripts submitted by an Editor, Editorial Board member, publisher representative, or close collaborator are assigned to an independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest. Such authors receive no preferential treatment.

5. Selection of independent reviewers

The handling editor identifies reviewers with appropriate scholarly and methodological expertise.

Reviewer selection takes into consideration:

• Expertise relevant to the manuscript

• Appropriate academic and research experience

• Relevant publication record

• Independence from the authors and research

• Absence of significant conflicts of interest

• Ability to provide a rigorous and constructive assessment

Authors may suggest or oppose potential reviewers where the journal permits this; however, reviewer selection remains entirely at the discretion of the editor.

The journal seeks appropriate disciplinary, institutional, and geographical diversity when selecting reviewers.

6. Double-anonymous peer review

QPJ applies a double-anonymous peer-review process for research manuscripts.

Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another as far as reasonably possible.

Manuscripts proceeding to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers.

Reviewers are asked to assess, as appropriate:

• Originality and scholarly contribution

• Relevance to the journal's scope

• Research question and theoretical foundation

• Methodological rigor

• Appropriateness of data and analysis

• Accuracy and transparency of reporting

• Strength of argumentation

• Interpretation of findings

• Relationship between evidence and conclusions

• Engagement with relevant international literature

• Ethical considerations

• Strengths and limitations

• Clarity, organization, and academic presentation

Reviewer identities and reports are treated as confidential editorial information.

Reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and decline the assignment when impartial assessment cannot be assured.

7. Evaluation of reviewer reports

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the editorial decision.

The handling editor evaluates:

• The manuscript

• Reviewer reports

• The quality and consistency of reviewer reasoning

• Ethical and methodological considerations

• The manuscript's contribution to the field

• Any identified research-integrity concerns

Where reviewer reports are substantially contradictory, incomplete, or insufficient, the editor may invite an additional independent reviewer.

Editors are not required to follow recommendations that are unsupported, inappropriate, discriminatory, unethical, or outside the reviewer's legitimate scholarly assessment.

8. Editorial decision

Following peer review, the journal may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept
The manuscript satisfies the journal's scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements.

Minor revision
The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarification before a final decision.

Major revision
Substantial scientific, methodological, analytical, theoretical, or presentation-related changes are required.

Reject
The manuscript does not satisfy the journal's standards for publication or cannot be adequately addressed through revision.

The decision letter communicates the editorial outcome and relevant reviewer and editor comments to the corresponding author.

The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for final editorial oversight.

9. Revision and author response

When revision is requested, authors must submit:

• A revised manuscript

• A detailed point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments

• A clear explanation of changes made

• A reasoned response where a suggested change has not been adopted

Authors should clearly identify substantive modifications made during revision.

Revised manuscripts are evaluated by the handling editor and may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers when further expert assessment is necessary.

A request for revision does not guarantee subsequent acceptance.

Multiple rounds of review may be conducted where scientifically justified.

10. Research-integrity verification

Research-integrity concerns may be examined at any stage of the editorial process.

Where necessary, editors may request:

• Original or supporting data

• Research instruments

• Documentation of ethics approval

• Evidence of informed consent

• Permissions for copyrighted material

• Author-contribution information

• Funding documentation

• Clarification of competing interests

• Evidence supporting figures, tables, or other research material

Credible concerns involving plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate data or image manipulation, authorship misconduct, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other serious ethical problems are investigated according to the journal's Publication ethics and research integrity policy.

11. Final acceptance

A manuscript is accepted only after the responsible academic editor determines that the required scholarly, methodological, ethical, peer-review, and editorial standards have been satisfactorily met.

Acceptance decisions are independent of Article Processing Charges or other financial considerations.

Where an Article Processing Charge applies, payment is handled separately from academic evaluation and does not guarantee acceptance.

12. Copyediting and production

Following acceptance, the manuscript enters production.

Production may include:

• Copyediting

• Language and consistency checks

• Reference verification

• Formatting

• Figure and table preparation

• Metadata verification

• DOI preparation where applicable

• Typesetting

• Preparation of the final publication format

Copyediting must not alter the scientific meaning or conclusions of the article without author and editorial approval.

13. Author proofreading

The corresponding author receives the final proof for verification before publication.

Authors are responsible for checking:

• Author names and affiliations

• Article title

• Abstract and keywords

• Text

• Tables and figures

• References

• Funding information

• Declarations

• Article metadata

Proofreading is intended primarily to identify production errors. Major changes to accepted scientific content require editorial approval.

14. Final publication

After completion of production and approval of the final proof, the article is published online and assigned its final bibliographic information within the journal's publication schedule.

The published article constitutes the journal's version of record.

Each article should display transparent bibliographic and publication information, including, where applicable:

• Article title

• Author names and affiliations

• Abstract and keywords

• Submission, revision, acceptance, and publication dates

• Volume and issue information

• DOI

• Copyright statement

• Licensing information

• Funding information

• Conflict-of-interest declaration

• Data availability statement

• Ethical declarations where applicable

Published content remains openly accessible in accordance with the journal's Open access policy and Licensing policy.

15. Editorial independence

Editorial decisions are made independently of the publisher's commercial interests and independently of an author's ability to pay publication charges.

Editors and reviewers must not be offered financial incentives linked to acceptance of individual manuscripts.

The scientific evaluation of a manuscript must remain separate from financial and administrative processing.

16. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to QPJ are treated as confidential documents.

Editors, reviewers, and journal personnel must not disclose or improperly use unpublished information obtained through the editorial process.

Submitted manuscripts must not be uploaded to external artificial-intelligence systems or other services where confidentiality, copyright, or data protection cannot be assured.

17. Conflicts of interest

Authors, editors, and reviewers must disclose relationships or circumstances that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their judgment.

Where a significant conflict exists, the relevant editor or reviewer must recuse themselves from the manuscript.

Conflict-of-interest management is documented as part of the journal's editorial process.

18. Appeals and complaints

Authors who believe that a significant scientific, factual, ethical, or procedural error affected an editorial decision may submit an appeal in accordance with the journal's Complaints and appeals policy.

An appeal should provide specific reasons and supporting evidence.

Where appropriate, the appeal is considered by a senior editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision.

Editorial appeals do not guarantee reversal of a decision.

19. Post-publication responsibility

The journal's responsibility for an article continues after publication.

Credible concerns about published work are assessed according to the journal's Publication ethics and research integrity and Corrections, retractions and expressions of concern policies.

Where necessary, QPJ may publish:

• Corrections

• Editorial notices

• Expressions of concern

• Retractions

The journal does not silently remove or alter the scholarly record except under exceptional legal, privacy, or safety circumstances.

Commitment to transparent publishing

QPJ is committed to maintaining an editorial process that is rigorous, transparent, independent, internationally oriented, and consistent with recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing.

The journal regularly reviews its editorial procedures to protect the integrity of peer review, strengthen the quality of published scholarship, and maintain the reliability of the permanent scholarly record.