All submission, review, revision, and decision processes for manuscripts submitted to the journal are conducted entirely through the DergiPark system.
A double-blind peer review system is applied in the evaluation of manuscripts. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential from one another. Manuscripts are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers holding a doctoral degree.
Manuscripts submitted to the journal must be prepared in accordance with the journal’s guidelines, must not have been previously published elsewhere, and must not be under consideration in another review process.
The scientific, ethical, and linguistic responsibility of the articles published in the journal belongs to the authors. In this regard, Dokuz Eylül University, Faculty of Architecture, EKSEN MFD, and the editors cannot be held responsible.
Articles published in the journal may be cited provided that proper attribution is given.
Article Evaluation Process:
1. Preliminary Review and Technical Check:
The manuscript is submitted through the system by the corresponding author. The editor conducts a preliminary evaluation in terms of relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, originality, and compliance with writing guidelines. Submissions deemed unsuitable are rejected without being sent for peer review.
The copy editor checks the following elements:
• Author and institutional information on the title page
• Ethics approval statement
• Author contribution statement
• Conflict of interest disclosure
• Compliance of the anonymized manuscript with the double-blind review principle
• Similarity rate
• Copyright agreement
• Other declarations (such as artificial intelligence use and data availability)
Manuscripts that do not meet the required conditions are returned to the author for revision or rejected.
2. Peer Review:
At least two independent reviewers are appointed by the editor. If a reviewer declines the invitation, fails to submit a report within the specified time, or needs to be replaced for ethical reasons, a new reviewer may be assigned.
Reviewers may issue one of the following decisions:
• Accept
• Minor Revision (publishable after minor corrections)
• Major Revision (requires substantial corrections)
• Reject
3. Revision Process:
If revision is requested, the author uploads the revised manuscript to the system along with detailed responses to the reviewers’ reports.
After a major revision, the manuscript is sent again—within a second round of review—to the reviewer(s) who recommended major revision.
Minor revisions may be reviewed and approved by the editor.
4. Final Decision:
Based on the reviewers’ reports and the revisions made, the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript is made by the editor.
If the manuscript is rejected, the author is informed along with the reasons.
If one reviewer provides a negative evaluation and the other a positive one, the editor may examine the reports and either assign a third reviewer or make a decision based on the existing reports.
5. Post-Acceptance Process:
For accepted manuscripts:
• The author uploads the final text in accordance with the “Post-Acceptance Full Text” template.
• Layout editing is carried out.
• Language editing is performed.
• Final approval is obtained from the author prior to publication.
• A DOI application is made for the article and it is published online.