The Taiwan Political Science Review (TPSR) is committed to publishing high-quality scholarship that makes original, innovative, and significant contributions to the broad field of political science. The Journal upholds the highest standards of academic and publication ethics and does not tolerate any form of scholarly misconduct. All manuscripts accepted for publication undergo a rigorous peer-review process, and authors are responsible for ensuring the accuracy, integrity, and scholarly rigor of their work.

TPSR will not consider or publish research involving academic or publication misconduct, including but not limited to plagiarism, duplicate or simultaneous submission, fabrication or falsification of data, inappropriate authorship attribution, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and the undisclosed use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools.

The following publication ethics policies are based primarily on the principles and guidelines established by Elsevier and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). They set forth the ethical duties of authors, reviewers, and editors.

Duties of authors

Reporting standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed, as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient references and relevant details to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. 

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and acknowledgement of sources

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from “passing off” another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Confidentiality

Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Authorship of the paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and to provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. Only in exceptional circumstances will the Editor consider (at their discretion) the addition, deletion or rearrangement of authors after the manuscript has been submitted and the author must clearly flag any such request to the Editor. All authors must agree with any such addition, removal or rearrangement. No changes to the list or order of authors will be permitted after the paper has been accepted for publication.

Authors take collective responsibility for the work. Each individual author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

Where research involves human participants or animal subjects, authors must clearly state in the manuscript that all procedures were conducted in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and institutional guidelines, and that the research received approval from the appropriate Institutional Review Board (IRB), research ethics committee, or other relevant institutional body. The manuscript must identify the approving body and provide the date and reference number of the ethics approval. For research involving human participants, authors must also state that informed consent was obtained and that participants’ rights to privacy are protected at all times.

Where a study is exempt from IRB or other ethics review, the manuscript must nevertheless include an ethics statement explaining why formal approval was not required and confirming that appropriate procedures were followed to safeguard the rights and privacy of all participants.

Declaration of competing interests

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

Use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools

Generative AI tools, including large language models, chatbots, and image generators, must not be listed as an author or co-author of a manuscript, nor be cited as an author. Authorship entails responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans, including accountability for the accuracy and originality of the work, the signing of copyright and licensing agreements, and the disclosure of conflicts of interest. This position is consistent with the position statement of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Authors must disclose, at submission, the use of any AI tools in the preparation of the manuscript or in any research conducted to produce the manuscript. The disclosure should specify: (1) the specific tasks for which AI tools were employed (e.g., data collection and management, code generation, statistical analysis, literature search, translation, or copyediting); (2) the full name, provider, and version of each tool used; and (3) how human oversight was maintained, including how AI-generated content was reviewed, edited, and approved by the authors before its incorporation. The disclosure should be included in the manuscript itself, for example, in a footnote, the methods section, or the acknowledgments. The use of AI tools solely for basic checks of grammar, spelling, and punctuation does not require disclosure.

Authors should not use AI tools to draft the manuscript or substantial elements of the manuscript, such as (but not limited to) the literature review, the theoretical framework, or the interpretation of results. Authors bear full responsibility for the entire content of the manuscript, including any part produced with the assistance of AI tools, and must ensure the accuracy and validity of all citations, direct quotations, statistical claims, and factual assertions. Using AI tools to fabricate or falsify references, data, or results, or to generate content in lieu of responses from human research participants, is strictly prohibited. AI tools must not be used to generate or modify figures or images in a manuscript, with the exception of data visualizations directly derived from underlying research data using reproducible methods, which must likewise be disclosed. Undisclosed use of AI tools may result in the rejection of a manuscript at any stage of the review or publishing process or, if discovered after publication, in a correction or retraction.

Duties of the Editorial Board

Publication decisions

The editors of Taiwanese Political Science Review are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play

The editors should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

The Journal employs a double-anonymous peer-review process. Editors must maintain the confidentiality of the identities and related information of both authors and reviewers and conduct the review process in accordance with the Journal’s peer-review procedures. During the review process, editors must not disclose the identity of reviewers or the review outcome to authors, nor disclose to reviewers any information that could reveal the identity of the authors.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. The editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. 

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

The editors should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools

The editors and any editorial staff must not upload a submitted manuscript, or any part of it, into a generative AI tool, as this may violate the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights. The editors must not use AI tools to evaluate manuscripts, to make publication decisions, or to write any part of a decision letter. Publication decisions must always be made by the editors themselves on the basis of their own professional judgment. AI tools may be used only in a supportive capacity, and the editors remain fully responsible for the content.

Duties of reviewers

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not upload the main text of a manuscript, in whole or in part, to a generative AI tool. Reviewers must not use AI tools to evaluate a manuscript or to write any part of a review report; the assessment must be carried out by the reviewers themselves. Reviewers may use AI tools in a supportive capacity within their normal workflow (e.g., finding related published work or improving the language of a review report), provided that no part of the main text of the manuscript is uploaded to the AI tool, and reviewers remain fully responsible for the content of their reports.