The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity, originality, and publication ethics. All submissions are expected to represent the authors' own work and to appropriately acknowledge the contributions of others.

Similarity Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo similarity screening using plagiarism detection software selected by the editorial office. The journal may utilize tools such as iThenticate, Turnitin, or other equivalent similarity-checking systems to assist in identifying potential overlap with previously published materials.

Similarity screening is conducted before a manuscript enters the peer-review process. The editorial office may also perform additional similarity checks at any stage of the editorial workflow, including during revision, after acceptance, or prior to publication.

Assessment of Similarity

Similarity reports serve as an initial screening tool and are not interpreted solely on the basis of a numerical score. Editorial decisions are made by considering both the overall similarity level and the nature, source, extent, and context of the overlapping content.

The editorial office may exclude the following elements when assessing similarity:

• References and bibliographies.
• Properly quoted and cited text.
• Standard methodological descriptions.
• Common academic phrases and technical terminology.
• Legally required statements, acknowledgments, or declarations.

Manuscripts exhibiting substantial textual overlap may be returned to the authors for revision, subjected to further editorial investigation, or rejected when the overlap is determined to constitute plagiarism, redundant publication, or other forms of academic misconduct.

As a general guideline, manuscripts with similarity scores exceeding 25% may receive additional editorial scrutiny. However, editorial decisions are based on the quality and nature of the overlap rather than solely on the similarity percentage.

Unacceptable Practices

The journal considers the following practices to constitute serious publication misconduct:

• Direct plagiarism, including the use of another person's work, ideas, data, or text without proper attribution.
• Self-plagiarism or redundant publication, including the reuse of substantial portions of previously published work without appropriate citation or justification.
• Duplicate submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously.
• Data fabrication, falsification, or manipulation.
• Improper citation, misleading attribution, or deliberate concealment of sources.
• Unauthorized use of copyrighted materials.
• Any other practice that misrepresents the originality or authenticity of the research.

Artificial Intelligence and Generated Content

The journal reserves the right to investigate manuscripts suspected of containing undisclosed AI-generated content, fabricated references, manipulated text, or other forms of content generation that violate the journal's authorship, transparency, or publication ethics policies.

Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all content submitted to the journal, regardless of any tools used during manuscript preparation.

Editorial Responsibility

The editorial office is responsible for conducting similarity screening on submitted manuscripts. The handling editor and/or Editor-in-Chief make the final determination regarding the significance of any detected overlap and the appropriate editorial action.

Post-Publication Actions

If plagiarism or other forms of publication misconduct are identified after publication, the journal reserves the right to take appropriate corrective measures in accordance with internationally recognized publication ethics standards and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Such actions may include, but are not limited to:

• Publishing a correction.
• Issuing an expression of concern.
• Publishing a retraction notice.
• Marking the original article as retracted while preserving the scholarly record.
• Removing content when required by legal or ethical considerations.
• Notifying relevant institutions, funding agencies, or research bodies when deemed necessary by the editorial board.

Author Appeals

Authors who believe that a plagiarism determination has been made in error may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals should normally be submitted within 14 days of notification and must include a detailed explanation together with any supporting evidence demonstrating the originality of the contested material.

All appeals will be reviewed by the editorial office, and the final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

PolicySci recognizes that Large Language Models (LLMs) and Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools may support various aspects of research and scholarly communication. While these technologies can assist authors, reviewers, and editors, they cannot replace human judgment, critical thinking, accountability, or scholarly responsibility.

This policy distinguishes between acceptable AI-assisted use, AI-generated content requiring disclosure, and prohibited uses of AI.

Acceptable AI-Assisted Use (No Disclosure Required)

Authors may use AI-powered tools to support language editing, grammar correction, spelling, formatting, readability improvement, or other technical enhancements that do not alter the intellectual substance of the work.

Such uses are considered routine editorial assistance and do not require disclosure. However, authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and quality of the submitted manuscript.

Use of Generative AI Requiring Disclosure

Authors must disclose any substantive use of Generative AI tools that materially contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Drafting or generating portions of text.
• Producing figures, illustrations, or visual materials.
• Assisting with literature synthesis or content generation.
• Supporting coding, data processing, or analytical tasks.
• Translating or substantially restructuring content.

Disclosure should be included in the Methods section, Acknowledgments, or another appropriate section of the manuscript.

Authors must carefully review and verify all AI-generated outputs before submission. Any factual inaccuracies, fabricated information, misleading statements, or incorrect citations remain the sole responsibility of the authors.

Generative AI tools must not be listed as authors or co-authors, as they cannot assume responsibility or accountability for the content of the work.

Prohibited Uses of AI

PolicySci does not permit the deceptive, undisclosed, or inappropriate use of AI technologies. Prohibited practices include, but are not limited to:

• Presenting AI-generated content as original human scholarship without appropriate disclosure.
• Fabricating, falsifying, or manipulating data, results, citations, references, or other research outputs.
• Presenting AI-generated responses as human participant data in qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods research.
• Presenting AI-generated images, documents, or other materials as authentic empirical evidence without appropriate disclosure.
• Using AI tools to engage in plagiarism, academic misconduct, or other unethical research practices.

The journal reserves the right to reject, withdraw, or retract manuscripts at any stage of the review or publication process where inappropriate or undisclosed AI use is identified.

Reviewer and Editor Responsibilities

Reviewers and editors must maintain the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts and peer review materials.

Confidentiality

Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, or confidential research materials must not be uploaded to Generative AI systems or other external services where confidentiality and data privacy cannot be guaranteed.

Reviewer Independence

Reviewers must prepare their assessments independently and must not rely on Generative AI tools to replace independent scholarly evaluation and professional judgment.

Editorial Responsibility

Editors may use AI tools for limited administrative or language-support purposes; however, all editorial decisions remain the sole responsibility of the editor and must be based on independent human judgment.

Investigation of AI-Related Concerns

Concerns regarding the undisclosed or inappropriate use of AI should be reported to the handling editor or the Editorial Office.

PolicySci will assess suspected violations on a case-by-case basis in accordance with its publication ethics policies and relevant guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Where misconduct is confirmed, the journal may take appropriate editorial action, including manuscript rejection, publication correction, retraction, or other measures deemed necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.