Editorial Process
Editorial decisions on manuscripts submitted to our journals are made by external academic editors and based on independent peer review reports. If the proposal paper is suitable for consideration by A+ArchDesign Journal, along with sample content, will be sent to a minimum of two external and independent peer reviewers. The peer reviewers’ assessments are used to inform the editor’s decision as to whether or not to recommend the publication to the AARCH. The issue editor subsequently makes the final recommendation to the A+ARCH on whether or not to award the author(s) a publishing contract. Our editors are free to solicit additional reviews and guidance post contract to inform the development of the manuscript.

We do not tolerate abusive behavior or correspondence towards our staff and others involved in the publishing process on our behalf. If anyone involved in this process engages in such behavior we have the right to take action to protect others from this abuse. This may include, for example, withdrawal of a manuscript from consideration, or challenging clearly abusive peer review comments.

Peer Review
Peer review is critical to maintaining the standards of our publications.

We provide appropriate systems, training, and support to facilitate rigorous, fair, and effective peer reviews for all our publications

support our editors and peer reviewers in investigating and acting on any suspected cases of manipulated or fraudulent peer review;

protect the confidentiality of participants in the peer review process where anonymity forms part of that publication’s peer review process. We also expect our publishing partners, authors, and peer reviewers to uphold any relevant confidentiality arrangements for the journal and to provide the necessary information to support this.

encourage our editors and peer reviewers to familiarise themselves with and act in accordance with relevant best practice guidelines on peer review.

support our editors and peer reviewers in investigating and acting on any suspected cases of manipulated or fraudulent peer review;

Authorship and Contributorship
The corresponding author’s specific responsibilities include:
• Manuscript correction and proofreading. Handling the revisions and re-submission of revised manuscripts up to the acceptance of the manuscripts.
• Agreeing to and signing the Author Publishing Agreement on behalf of relevant coauthors and/or arranging for any third-party copyright owners’ signature;

Affiliations
Any article affiliations should represent the institution(s) at which the research presented was conducted and/or supported and/or approved. For non-research content, any affiliations should represent the institution(s) with which each author is currently affiliated

Plagiarism
Placing the original ideas, methods, data, or works of others, partly or completely, without making reference to the scientific rules, is dealt with in the context of plagiarism. In order to avoid plagiarism, the authors should refer to the scientific rules in a manner that is appropriate and should pay attention to the references of all scientific papers in their research.

Plagiarism can occur with respect to all types of sources and media, including:
• text, illustrations, musical quotations, extended mathematical derivations, computer code, etc.;
• material downloaded from websites or drawn from manuscripts or other media;
• published and unpublished material, including lectures, presentations, and grey literature. We do not tolerate plagiarism in any of our publications, and we reserve the right to check all submissions through appropriate plagiarism checking tools. Submissions containing suspected plagiarism, in whole or part, will be rejected. If plagiarism is discovered postpublication, we will follow our guidance outlined in the Retractions, Corrections, and Expressions of Concern section of these guidelines. We expect our readers, reviewers, and editors to raise any suspicions of plagiarism, either by contacting the relevant editor or by emailing aarchdesign@aydin.edu.tr.

Duplicate and Redundant Publication
Articles submitted for publication must be original and must not have been submitted to any other publication. Except in very unusual circumstances (and then only with your agreement as the editor), authors are expected to submit articles that are original and have not been submitted to any other publication.

We do not support substantial overlap between publications, unless:
• it is felt that editorially this will strengthen the academic discourse; and
• we have clear approval from the original publication; and
• we include citations of the original source.

When authors submit manuscripts to our journals, these manuscripts should not be under consideration, accepted for publication, or in the press within a different journal, book, or similar entity, unless a journal is explicit that it does not have an exclusive submission policy. However, the deposition of a preprint on the author’s personal website, in an institutional repository, or in a preprint archive shall not be viewed as prior or duplicate publication. Authors should follow our Preprint Policy regarding preprint archives and maintaining the version of the record. Any manuscript based on a thesis should be a reworking of the material in the thesis and written to conform to the journal’s style guide or relevant book guidance. When quoting from the thesis or reusing figures, authors should avoid self-plagiarism by citing and referencing any extracts copied or adapted from the thesis appropriately. If a thesis was published by a publisher and is publicly accessible, permission may be required from the thesis publisher before submitting it to a journal. The relevant editor should be informed that the manuscript draws on a thesis in the cover letter.

Research with Humans or Animals
Research involving humans or animals should be approved by the relevant ethics committee(s) and should conform to international ethical and legal standards for research. We also expect authors to respect human participants’ right to privacy, and to gain any necessary consent to publish before submitting to us. For information on whether authors are required to submit or include evidence regarding the above, please consult individual journal submission guidelines or contact the relevant book or journal editor.

Competing Interests and Funding
We try to ensure that any A+ArchDesign Journal is free from undue influence. Authors, editors, and reviewers are required to declare any potential competing interests that could interfere with the objectivity or integrity of a publication. Competing interests are situations that could be perceived to exert an undue influence on the presentation, review, or publication of a piece of work. These may be financial, non-financial, professional, contractual, or personal in nature. We also expect that anyone who suspects undisclosed competing interests regarding a work published or under consideration by A+Arch Design Journal should inform the relevant editor or email aarchdesign@aydin.edu.tr.

Libel, Defamation, and Freedom of Expression
Freedom of expression is critical to us as academic publishers, but we do not support publishing false statements that harm the reputation of individuals, groups, or organizations. Our legal team can advise on pre-publication libel reviews, and will also address allegations of libel in any of our publications.

Retractions, Corrections, and Expressions of Concern
If an author is found to have made an error, the journal will issue a corrigendum. If the journal is found to have made an error, they will issue an erratum. Retractions are usually reserved for articles that are so seriously flawed that their findings or conclusions should not be relied upon, or that contain substantial plagiarism or life-endangering content. Journals that publish Accepted Manuscripts may make minor changes such as those which would likely occur during copyediting, typesetting, or proofreading, but any substantive corrections.

In exceptional cases, we may remove an article from online publication where we believe it is necessary to comply with our legal obligations. This includes, without limitation, where we have concerns that the article is defamatory, violates personal privacy or confidentiality laws, is the subject of a court order, or might pose a serious health risk to the general public. In these circumstances, we may decide to remove the article and publish a notice that clearly states why the full article has been removed.

Manipulation, Falsification, and Fabrication
Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable provided they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original. Manipulating images for improved clarity is accepted, but manipulation for other purposes could be seen as scientific ethical abuse and will be dealt with accordingly. Image duplication or re-use necessitates the original source and reason for re-use to be specified, and any required licenses and permissions to be in place.

Duplication and manipulation of images may be a form of research misconduct (falsification or fabrication) especially when the image is a crucial part of the findings.

Fraudulent Research and Research Misconduct
Where we are made aware of fraudulent research or research misconduct by an A+ArchDesign author, our first concern is the integrity of the content we have published. Any publication found to include fraudulent results will be retracted, or an appropriate correction or expression of concern will be issued.

Data and Supporting Evidence
We support transparency and openness around data, code, and other materials associated with research. We expect authors to maintain accurate records of supporting evidence necessary to allow others to understand, verify, and replicate new findings, and to supply or provide access to this supporting evidence, on reasonable request. Where appropriate and where allowed by their employer, funding body, or others who might have an interest, we encourage authors to:
• deposit evidence in a suitable repository or storage location, for sharing and further use by others; and
• describe where the evidence may be found in a Data Availability Statement which authors should include in their publication.

Integrity of Record
We maintain a record of the existence of everything we publish with information (metadata) describing each publication. If our content is deemed not to comply with the laws of a sovereign nation, we make every effort to ensure the metadata remains accessible within that jurisdiction. Where we are obliged to alter the publication record in any way, such as in the case of research misconduct leading to the retraction of a publication, we preserve the academic record as far as possible.

Undisclosed conflicts of interest
Public trust in the peer review process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how well conflict of interest is handled during writing, peer review, and editorial decision-making. Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationships are also known as "dual commitments", "competing interests", or "competing loyalties").

Reviewer bias or competitive harmful acts by reviewers
Editors should avoid selecting external peer reviewers with obvious potential conflicts of interest, for example, those who work in the same department or institution as any of the authors. Authors often provide editors with the names of persons they feel should not be asked to review a manuscript because of potential conflicts of interest, usually professional. Where possible, authors should be asked to explain or justify their concerns - this information is important to editors in deciding whether to honor such requests.