Evaluation Process

1. Articles submitted to ATA Journal of Planning and Design are first checked by the editor, in terms of its conformity with the publication and writing principles of the journal. As a result of this evaluation, if any corrections to be made by the author are seen, the relevant manuscript is returned to the author with the requested corrections.

2. POLICY FOR SCREENING FOR PLAGIARISM: For each manuscript submitted to the journal, the authors should submit a similarity report that is obtained using the relevant plagiarism programs (iThenticate and Turnitin Plagiarism Detection Softwares). If this report is not submitted by the author(s), the editors may check the manuscripts in those plagiarism softwares. The similarity rate in the report should be a maximum of 30%; excluding references.

3. Double blind review process begins for the manuscripts that comply with the publication and writing principles, and have a similarity ratio under 30%.

4. The manuscripts that are approved by the editor will be directed to the referees with a reference number which is formed in order not to include any information that will decrypt the identity of the authors.

5. The evaluation of each manuscript is reviewed by DOUBLE BLIND PEER REVIEW process, with at least two referees.

6. Referees are selected from among those who have expertise in the field of writing and in the main branch of science. Authors are asked to propose two referees. However, editors have the opportunity to decide selecting one of the referees from the author(s)’ proposals or not.

7. Referees have 15 days for evaluation; however, this may be exceeded up to maximum 30 days. If a referee does not return back with a report within this period, a new referee is appointed for the article and the process starts again.

8. The manuscript receiving two positive referee reports from the field evaluation is entitled to be published. The letter which receives a positive and negative referee report is sent to a third referee and it is determined in accordance with the third referee's report whether or not the article is published.

9. The referees may wish to see the manuscript again, after the author makes the related corrections they offer. If this request is stated in the report, the revised version of the text is sent back to the referee.

10. The authors may object to the referee's report in a reasonable and convincing manner. Objections are reviewed by the journal management and, if it is deemed appropriate, opinions of a different referee may be consulted.

11. The editors of the journal follow the corrections given by the referees carefully. Accordingly, editors may decide whether or not to publish the manuscript.