Articles that have not been published before or that are not yet under evaluation in another journal for publication and that are approved by each author are accepted for evaluation.
DEPARCH Journal of Design, Planning and Aesthetics Research receives a similarity report for all manuscripts submitted the journal by uploading it to the iThenticate &Turnitin program. The similarity rate of the manuscript submitted to the journal should be below 20%. Manuscripts with a similarity rate above 20% are rejected by the Editorial Board. The acceptable limit for the journal is 20% for general similarity and 5% for similarity with a single source.

Editors should ensure that the submitted manuscripts are evaluated by at least two-peer reviewers have expertise in the relevant subject area. The Editor-in-Chief assigns an editor, if the manuscript submitted by the author complies with the requirements of the DEPARCH after the first screening. If the manuscript does not meet the requirements of the journal, the author is notified by e-mail.

Editors are responsible for evaluating the manuscript in terms of its intellectual content regardless of authors' gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnic origin, citizenship, religion, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the editorial content of the Journal and for arranging its publication time.
In case of any potential editorial conflict of interest, it should be declared to the publisher and another member of Editorial Team should be appointed.

The Editor-in-Chief has the authority to make the final decision on the following process of the manuscript. Editor must refuse to participate the review process of submitted manuscript for individuals or organizations that he/she has any interest.

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the submitted manuscripts and not share any information about the content of manuscript except with the permission of the editor.

Although the editor encourages professional discussion and support to review the manuscript, the discussion should first be conducted with the editor to ensure confidentiality. Reviewer has the responsivity to inform the editor about the unethical issues he/she suspects. Review should ensure the appropriate citation in case of similarity of manuscript with others work that invalidates the manuscript or important parts of it.

If the reviewers do not think they are qualified to review the manuscript, or if it does not seem possible to provide a prompt review, he/she should inform the editor and ask him not to involve himself in the review process. Reviewers are expected to report the review of manuscript within the time limit.

Editors are responsible for ensuring the confidentiality of the authors and reviewers as a requirement of double-blind peer review process.

The editor must keep the confidential all information about submitted manuscripts, except for sharing with the relevant authors and reviewers, publisher and editorial team.

Confidential information that belongs to submitted manuscripts must not be used for editors’ own research purposes without the permission of the author.

Article Evaluation Process
Peer Review: Editors should ensure that the submitted manuscripts are evaluated by at least two-peer reviewers have expertise in the relevant subject area. The Editor-in-Chief assigns an editor, if the manuscript submitted by the author complies with the requirements of DEPARCH after the first screening. If the manuscript does not meet the requirements of the journal, the author is notified by e-mail.
Review Time: Pre-Publication
Author- Review Interaction: Editors are responsible for being the contact person between the author and the reviewers and communicating with everyone involved in the publication process.
Time In Review: Variations in the time to receive reviewer reports and to assign the appropriate reviewer for the manuscript also cause variation in first decision of the journal. Therefore, journal cannot warrant how long it takes after review to first decision.
Plagiarism Check: Yes. Ithenticate &Turnitin scans articles to prevent plagiarism.

Evaluation Process
Decision: For the article to be accepted as a publication by the Editor, it should be ensured that the submitted manuscripts are evaluated by at least two-peer reviewers have expertise in the relevant subject area.

Suspected Ethical Violation: Reviewer has responsivity to inform the editor about the unethical issues he/she suspects. Review should ensure the appropriate citation in case of similarity of the manuscript with others work that invalidates the manuscript or important parts of it (by following COPE).

The Editor-in-Chief reviews the research article on the day it is submitted, and if he decides it requires further consideration, he sends it to the assistant editor for further review. For research articles, the assistant editor usually reviews each article from beginning to end. We aim to reach an initial decision within two or three weeks for all articles, but usually the initial decision is made within a few days of submission. If we do not think that DEPARCH is the correct journal for the study, we will notify the authors immediately so that they can send their work elsewhere without delay. The usual reasons for rejection at this stage are insufficient originality and the subject being outside the scope of the journal.

The next step for your research paper is our Editorial Board meeting. Members will read your article and discuss its importance, originality and scientific quality. We mainly focus on the research question to make editorial decisions for research articles. Even if the subject of the article is relevant to the scope of DEPARCH, current and important, we can reject the article if there is no research question. Of course, work will be rejected if it has serious defects. Everyone attending the article meeting is asked to declare relevant conflicting interests at the outset, and anyone with a significant conflicting interest either leaves the room or speaks last while the relevant article is being discussed (depending on the nature and scope of their interest).

Editors should ensure that the submitted manuscripts are evaluated by at least two-peer reviewers have expertise in the relevant subject area. In case of any potential editorial conflict of interest, it should be declared to the publisher and another member of Editorial Team should be appointed. As a result of the review of manuscript by two reviewers according to the review criteria of the journal; it is decided whether the manuscript should be accepted or not, a major or minor revision that requires resubmission of the manuscript by the author. The Editor-in-Chief has the authority to make the final decision on the following process of manuscript.

DEPARCH provides open access to articles as part of its commitment to readers and authors. All our articles are freely available online.

Principles of the Peer Process for the Study of the Editorial Board
Editorial articles and analysis articles written by the own editors of DEPARCH are not subject to external referee evaluation. Original research articles, on the other hand, are sent to at least two external referees within the scope of blind refereeing. During this time, the roles of those editors are suspended.

Responsibilities of the Authors
Reporting standards
The data in the manuscript must be presented in an appropriate way and contain sufficient detail to provide the others can replicate it.
Responsibility for opinions in manuscript, compliance with scientific and ethical rules belongs to the authors. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statement constitutes unethical behaviour and will be unacceptable.

Originality and Acknowledgement of Sources
The authors are responsible to submit an original work and using another’s work/words a in an inappropriate way. The author should use copyrighted materials (for example, tables, figures, or large quotations) used in their manuscript with due permission and thanks.
The publications that are effective in the formation of the original version of the manuscript should be cited as a reference.
Plagiarism in all forms is unethical publication behaviour that is unacceptable.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication
The authors are responsible for not submitting the same manuscripts describing essentially the same research to more than one journal or primary publication as it is an unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable. Authors should submit manuscripts that has not been published in any language before in its entirety or in part and is not currently under submission or under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Authorship of the manuscript
All authors must have a direct academic and scientific contribution to the submitted manuscript to the journal. All author(s) named in a manuscript must comply with the following criteria: 1) have participated in the design process, data collection and analysis/interpretation of the data reviewed; and 2) participated in the drafting and critical evaluation of the content; and 3) took the responsibility of checking the accuracy of the study and approving the final version. Author(s) are responsible for specifying their contribution percentages in the cover letter according to their participation rates in the processes.

Others who have not directly participated in these different stages but have participated in substantive aspect of manuscript should not be recognised as authors; however, their contributions should be mentioned in the “acknowledgments” section with permission.

The corresponding author is responsible for confirming that all authors who contributed to the manuscript by complying with the criteria stated above are included in the list and approved the final version.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
The author should disclose any potential conflict of interest that may affect the results of manuscript that can be financial as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert witness, patent applications / registrations and grants of other funding and also personal or professional relationships and connections.

The authors should disclose where the support is obtained from if there is a sponsorship or financial funding that supports the study. If support is not received, it must be stated in the cover letter as “The author(s) declared that no financial support has received no financial support”.

Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
If the work includes human and animal subjects, ethics committee approval must be obtained from the necessary institutions. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.
Legal/Private Permissions
It is also obligatory to obtain legal/special permission in qualitative or quantitative research that incorporates data collecting from the participants by using survey, interview, focus group interview, observation, and experimental techniques. Authors should use private information by obtaining the written permission from these sources.

Fundamental errors in published works
If author detects errors and inaccuracies in the publication of the manuscript, they are responsible to inform the journal editor or publisher to correction of paper.
The author(s) is responsible for preparing the study according to the journal writing rules.

Responsibilities of the Editors
Editors are responsible for being the contact person between the author and the reviewers and communicating with everyone involved in the publication process.

Editorial Board considers the consistent criticisms of the manuscripts published in the journal and gives the right to reply to the author(s) of the criticized manuscript.

The Editorial Board is responsible for the overall quality of the content and publication.

Fair play and impartiality
Editors are responsible for evaluating the manuscript in terms of its intellectual content regardless of authors' gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnic origin, citizenship, religion, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the editorial content of the journal and for arranging its publication time.

Confidentiality
Editors are responsible for ensuring confidentiality of the authors and reviewers as a requirement of double-blind peer review process.

The editor must keep the confidential all information about submitted manuscripts, except for sharing with the relevant authors and reviewers, publisher and editorial team.

Confidential information that belongs to submitted manuscripts must not be used for editors’ own research purposes without the permission of the author.

Competing Interests
In case of any potential editorial conflict of interest, it should be declared to the publisher and another member of Editorial Team should be appointed.

Editor must refuse to participate the review process of submitted manuscript for individuals or organizations that he/she has any interest.

Peer Review
Editors should ensure that the submitted manuscripts are evaluated by at least two-peer reviewers have expertise in the relevant subject area.

Publication decisions
The Editor has full responsibility and authority to accept or reject a study. The Editor has full responsibility and authority only regarding the appointment of the referee. Editors has the right not to accept non-scientific and non-academic evaluations. The Editor must consider the original value of the study, its contribution to the field, the validity and reliability of the research method, the clarity of the narrative, and the reviewers’ comments and the plagiarism, copyright infringement, libel and any other legal issues while deciding which submission will be published. In the decision process, the editor can consult the editorial team and the reviewers. The Editorial Board has full authority about the final decision regarding the publication of the articles in the journal.

Dealing with Misconduct
The Editorial Board has the authority to withdraw the manuscript if they detect an error in a published work that invalidates the work or important parts of it, contains plagiarism and unethical behaviours. DEPARCH follows the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) to deal with these unethical issues.

Responsibilities of the Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review that is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, helps making editorial decisions and allows an author to enhance their manuscript through editorial communications.

If the reviewers do not think they are qualified to review the manuscript, or if it does not seem possible to provide a prompt review, he/she should inform the editor and ask him not to involve himself in the review process.

Confidentiality
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the submitted manuscripts and not share any information about the content of manuscript except with the permission of the editor.
Although the editor encourages professional discussion and support to review the manuscript, the discussion should first be conducted with the editor to ensure confidentiality.

Suitability and Promptness
If the reviewers do not think they are qualified to review the manuscript, or if it does not seem possible to provide a prompt review, he/she should inform the editor and ask him not to involve himself in the review process. Reviewers are expected to report the review of manuscript within the time limit.
Ethical Considerations
Reviewer has responsivity to inform the editor about the unethical issues he/she suspects. Review should ensure the appropriate citation in case of similarity of manuscript with others work that invalidates the manuscript or important parts of it.

Standards of objectivity
Reviewers must conduct the review process objectively considering academic, scholarly, and scientific standards, and avoid personal criticism of the author.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Reviewers should inform the editor if there is a conflict of interest from competitive, collaborative or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to manuscript and should not accept the review.

Unpublished material included in the submitted manuscript must be kept confidential and it must not be used for reviewers’ own research purposes without the permission of the author.

During the refereeing process, the referees are expected to make their evaluations by considering the following: Does the article contain new and important information? / Does the abstract clearly and properly describe the content of the article? / Is the method coherent and clearly defined? / Are the comments and conclusions made substantiated by the findings? / Are adequate references given to other studies in the field? / Is the language quality adequate?

Plagiarism Report
DEPARCH receives a similarity report for all manuscripts submitted the journal by uploading it to the iThenticate&Turnitin program. The similarity rate of the manuscript submitted to the journal should be below 20%. Manuscript with a similarity rate above 20% are rejected by the Editorial Board. The acceptable limit for the journal is 20% for general similarity and 5% for similarity with a single source.Although the similarity rate is 1%, if the citation and citation are not duly made, plagiarism may still be in question. In this respect, citation and citation rules should be known and carefully applied by the author:

Citation/Indirect Citation
If there is a reference to discussion or determination in a source and the cited opinion is lined up with the citing researcher's own words, a footnote (1) should be placed at the end of the sentence. If the reference is to a certain page or page range of the work, the page number should be given. If there is a reference to the whole work, that is, if it is cited in a way that requires the reader to examine the whole work, the footnotes include "See about this.", "See about this opinion.", "See about this discussion." or just “see.” The source should be indicated after the statement.

Quotation/Quote
If the relevant part is taken from the referenced source exactly as it is, the quoted part is "given in double quotes" and the source is indicated by giving the footnote number1 at the end. Existing quotations in the directly quoted text are written using 'single quotes'. If the directly quoted part is longer than three lines (more than forty words), it is shown as a separate paragraph. In order to distinguish long quotations from the main text, it should be preferred to write in a font size one smaller than the normal text size and indent the entire paragraph from the left at the beginning of the carriage line. Some words, sentences and paragraphs can be omitted from the directly quoted text, provided that the meaning is not changed. Three dots (…) are put in place of the removed parts. It would not be correct to write the part that is quoted from a source without enclosing it in "double quotes" and to only write the source at the end. If these rules are not followed, the author may be accused of publication ethics (Plagiarism). Although the similarity rate is 1%, if the citation and citation are not duly made, plagiarism may still be in question. In this respect, citation and citation rules should be known and carefully applied by the author.

Field Editor Review
The study, which has completed the Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Screening, is examined by the relevant field editor in terms of problematic and academic language-style. This review will be completed in a maximum of 15 days.

Peer Review Process
The Editor-in-Chief assigns an editor, if the manuscript submitted by the author complies with the requirements of the DEPARCH after the first screening. If the manuscript does not meet the requirements of the journal, the author is notified by e-mail.

Editor-in-Chief and the Editors' office have the right to select various reviewers from throughout the world have the appropriate expertise in the field. The manuscript chosen by Editors’ decision is sent to the reviewers have expertise in their field to review the manuscript.
As a result of the review of the manuscript by two reviewers who have a doctoral thesis, book or article on the subject according to the review criteria of the journal; it is decided whether the manuscript should be accepted or not, a major or minor revision that requires resubmission of the manuscript by the author. The referee is requested to state his/her opinion and opinion on the study he/she has examined on the text or justify it with explanation on the online referee form. If the author does not agree with the referee's opinions, he/she has the right to object and defend his opinions. If one of the two referees has a negative opinion, the study is sent to a third referee. Studies can be published with the positive decision of at least two referees. The publication of book and symposium evaluations and doctoral thesis summaries is decided upon the evaluation of at least two internal referees (relevant field editors and/or editorial board members). The Editor-in-Chief has the authority to make the final decision on the following process of the manuscript.
Variations in the time to receive reviewer reports and to assign the appropriate reviewer for the manuscript also cause variation in first decision of journal. Therefore, journal cannot warrant about how long it takes after review to first decision.

Correction Stage
If the referees want correction in the text they have examined, the relevant reports are sent to the author, and he is asked to correct his work. The author makes the corrections with the "Track Changes" feature turned on in the Word program or indicates the changes in the text in red. Submits the edited text to the field editor.

Field Editor Control
The field editor checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.

Referee Control
The referee requesting correction checks whether the author has made the requested corrections in the text.

English Language Check
The articles are reviewed by the English Language Editor and if necessary, corrections are requested from the author. The English language editor's control process is completed within a maximum of 15 days.

Editorial Board Review
The articles that have completed technical, academic and linguistic examinations are examined by the Editorial Board, and whether they will be published or not, and if they will be published, in which issue they will be included is decided. The Board decides by majority vote. In the event of a tie, the final decision is made in the direction of the editor's decision.

Typesetting and Layout Phase
The typesetting and layout of the works decided to be published by the Editorial Board are made ready for publication and sent to the author for review. This stage lasts for a maximum of 15 days.

Data Submission to National and International Indexes
The data of the published issue is transmitted to the relevant indexes within 15 days.