Research Quality Standards
»Research at Group for Legal and Political Studies can only be conducted if there are a range of standards applied. As a result, the quality of the research will be constantly controlled and standardized, leading to scientifically approved research findings. By doing so, Group for Legal and Political Studies aims to produce highly competitive papers while assuring that the research ingredients have a rooted rationality. The research quality standards, shown here, have been approved by the Research Committee of the Group, however their efficacy will be checked by the peer-review panels.
Standards to be reached in the progress of research are:
[A RESEARCH QUESTION SHOULD BE SET FORTH]
»There can be no research developed if a research question is not set forth. The research should address a thinking competence towards an objective, which is the research question. Still the abstractness of a research question can be a discussed matter, however the research itself should address a question to whom all research results will be dedicated. Consequently, the explanation upon the question of the research is the path that the research per se will follow. In addition, the research question can either be a theoretical matter or a practical one, however in the last instance it can be a combination of both.
[A THESIS PRODUCED]
»The research itself should aim a thesis. The thesis itself should be an argued answer to the raised research question. The thesis should be based in facts taken from credible sources. Moreover, the thesis should have an easily-understood structure, from where any test upon it can be easily conducted. The thesis should consist of the explanative model designed in consistency with the facts and proofs for those facts shown during the progress of research. Ultimately, the thesis should be authentic, meaning that it has never been developed before. In that logic, the final thesis should be checked against a potential tautology.
[LITERATURE REVIEW]
»The research can not be pursued if it has not surveyed the relevant literature in that field. In its primary aim, research at Group for Legal and Political Studies cannot underestimate the importance of literature in the field being studied. As such, research should critically approach the literature in place, as a result, every paper should pay attention to the arguments shown in the existing literature. Furthermore – the research should provide contra-arguments if it is observed that a segment of the literature does provide wrong argumentation – if the argument speaking for is relevant for the research being developed. A priority towards specific literature should follow the research, meaning that general literature can be excluded from the survey if there is enough amount of specific literature upon the relevant research. In that line, it is obligatory to give priority towards world-class journals and studies towards text-books or essays.
[INNOVATIVE OR INVENTIVE RESEARCH ONLY]
»Research can only be conducted if it is assumed that it will reach an authentic hypothesis, which has not been developed before. In that line, it is mandatory to develop innovative researches only, where the development of a new idea/thesis/method which has not been in place before is a target. However, if there is an existing idea which has not been applied in a practical case up to then, there are allowed inventive researches also, meaning that the application of a theory/method/idea upon a specific case is approved. As such, the inventive research should make sure, that the whole figure of the existing theory is applied upon the individual case. Ultimately, no research that does not aim the newness of theory/idea/method is endorsed or allowed.
[THE COUNTER-APPROACHES INCLUDED INTO ANALYSIS]
»Research should pay serious attention to the counter-approaches shown in the literature and practise. Following that, research should emphasize the importance of the existing counter-approaches already in place, thus including into the research the critique to the existing counter-approach. If, say a research, is not able to disprove the existing argumentation for the phenomenon studied, it should stop its steps forward. However, if there is not enough evidence and argumentation as to be able to disprove the existing counter-approach, then the research should either change the aimed-thesis partially or totally, unless there is no interference with the existing literature’s argued approaches.
[BORDERED THESIS]
»Research should aim to have a bordered thesis, meaning that no widely general thesis is accepted. Following that, research should aim to build a thesis whose borders are easily seen, given that the endless thesis ends in tautology. As such, research should build a thesis whose elements are easily analyzed whereas the potentiality of pulling the thesis from the context, is textually prevented.
[TESTED HYPOTHESIS]
»Every thesis produced in the progress of research should be tested against practical or theoretical cases. In that logic, the more cases applied in the testing of thesis, the more scientifically acceptable the thesis is. Nevertheless, thesis reached can be small, medium or big-N ones. Following that, the testing of the produced thesis takes into account the quantitative data but also the qualitative arguments and cases in place. The more elements included in the test, the more accurate and trustful the thesis will be. Furthermore, the testing of thesis cannot be based in ideal or imaginary facts; however, it can only do so if the thesis itself is made to reach abstract objectives only.
[PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH ONLY]
»No research, and as a result, paper produced, can take place if there is not an approved peer-review taking place. Still, the personal thoughts or articles, whose aim is to just discuss an issue, can be freed from the peer-review process. In the meantime, it should be assured that the peer-review process is conducted by relevant scientists or professionals, whose capacity to do so is not contested. In addition, the peer-review process cannot provide suggestions during the course of research, but it can only do so in the final stage when the research is delivered for inspection, or during time-specified consecutive stages. In the meantime, the peer-review process cannot check the academic standard of a paper produced, unless it has been procedurally delivered for review. Furthermore, the peer-reviewers cannot impose limits or arguments for the structure of a research or paper, but they can only advise on the standards to have been breached.