This journal is following of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and complies with the highest ethical standards in accordance with ethical laws.

Journal of World Sociopolitical Studies is committed to preserve publication ethics. Any defiance from ethical standards of publication on the part of authors would withdraw the article from consideration. The journal routinely screens article submissions for plagiarism.

World Sociopolitical Studies provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. This journal is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0), which allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).

Author responsibilities:

-        The submission process requires authors to declare the originality of their papers. Any signs of plagiarism make us withdraw the paper from consideration. Cases of plagiarism include:

A) Copying the content of another author’s work without reference to the original work. It may include either words or data in the form of tables, figures and pictures, (literal copying of any content to the article is only permitted when quotation marks are used around the copied content.

B) Using ideas or judgment of another author without reference to the original work. It also includes paraphrasing another author’s words.

C) Re-producing parts of one’s own previous works and presenting it as a new article without reference to the original work.

D) Translation of an article or book chapter from another language and presenting it as an original work.

       -             Authors are required to declare the originality of the data and conclusions they have used to write the article. Cases of fraud include:

        A) inventing data in the form of tables, figures, images, interviews, quotations, etc. and using them as if they are real ones.

        B) making changes to real data and using it to get to the desired conclusions. it may include omission or modification of either quantitative or qualitative        data.

-        Authors are required to declare that their article has neither been published (either electronically or on paper) nor accepted nor is it under consideration in other journals. They should also confirm that they would not send the article to any other journal until they receive the review results from World Sociopolitical Studies. As soon as detected, dual submission would lead to the withdrawal of the article from the review process.

-        Authors are required to declare that they have (and would) not send a translation (in any language) of their article to any other journal worldwide.

-         For all manuscripts, non-discriminatory language is mandatory. Sexist or racist terms must not be used.

-        Authors have to consider the list and order of authors before submission. No additions and deletions or rearrangements in the list of authors would be accepted.

-        To avoid conflict of interests, authors are requested to declare whether (and how) their research has been financially supported either by individuals, organizations or governments. (conflict of interests form)

        -        To avoid plagiarism, this journal uses iThenticate software for similarity check.

         -       To preserve the above principles, authors are required to fill the journal`s ethics of publication form.

Reviewer Responsibilities:

• Journal of World Sociopolitical Studies has a Double-Blind peer review policy. Reviewers should abstain from assessing the articles which they have previously provided written suggestions in the first version. If a reviewer is aware of the author`s identity or coauthor`s identity, is involved naturally in assessing the article. Reviewers are also responsible for avoiding writing, telling, and doing whatever reveals their identity for the author.
• Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the assessment process. It is important to recognize whether this article is confidential or not. Reviewers should not discuss anyone except editor about article and they are not allowed to transfer the essay information to someone else.
• A potential reviewer should withdraw from the review process if he/she feels unqualified to assess the contribution or cannot provide an assessment in a timely manner as defined by the editor.
• Reviewers should strive to be objective in their assessments. Reviewers’ comments should be clearly expressed and supported by data or arguments. Personal criticism of the author(s) is not appropriate.
• Reviewers should abstain from assessing the articles which they think they are involved in conflicts of benefits such as shared financial, organizational and personal benefits or any connections with other companies, institutes or related individuals with essay, the reviewers who may have conflicts of benefits in the field of a special article. This conflict should be clarified for the editor to determine the appropriate level of assessment. 
• If authors have any complaints about the submission/review process, they can send it via the contact form on the journal website. Contact contents are directly sent to the journal email and answered in 3 days.  

Editor Responsibilities:

• The editor’s chief responsibility is to determine which submissions to the journal will be published. He/she must ensure that decisions are made based on the manuscript’s merit and that the author’s race, gender, religious or political beliefs, ethnicity, or citizenship are not considered.
• Editors should improve their position score and circumstances confidentially, constructively unbiased. Editors carry the essay review duty only based on scientific merits. Editors should act unbiased, without personal or ideological advocacy.
• The editors are responsible for accepting or refusing the articles, which typically depend on the idea, and recommendations of reviewers; by the way, the articles which are inappropriate in the point of view of editors are probably refused without reviewers’ assessment.