Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Proceedings of the International Conference of Contemporary Affairs in Architecture and Urbanism-ICCAUA

Policy version: 18 August 2026
Applies to: all submissions, published content, special collections, conference-derived papers, editors, reviewers, authors, and the publisher.

Publication identity	Official information
Main title	Proceedings of the International Conference of Contemporary Affairs in Architecture and Urbanism-ICCAUA
Serial key title	Proceedings of the international conference of contemporary affairs in architecture and urbanism-ICCAUA
E-ISSN	3023-7009
Serial type	Journal dedicated to peer-reviewed conference proceedings
Frequency	Annually (June)
Publisher	Alanya Üniversitesi (Alanya University)
Postal address	Cikcilli District, Saraybeleni Street No:7, 07400 Alanya/Antalya, Türkiye
Licensing	Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0); authors retain copyright
Publication medium	Electronic
Publication website	https://journal.iccaua.com/index.php/jiccaua
Editor-in-Chief	Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hourakhsh A. Nia
Editors	See the Editorial Team
Status / first year	Active / 2018
DOI registration prefix used for articles	10.38027
Content and language	Academic and scholarly content / English
Editorial model	Refereed; double-anonymized (double-blind) peer review for scholarly articles
Host platform	Open Journal Systems (OJS)
Copyright position	Authors retain copyright; reuse is governed by CC BY 4.0

 

The Proceedings of the International Conference of Contemporary Affairs in Architecture and Urbanism-ICCAUA (the Journal) is committed to an accurate, trustworthy, accessible, and durable scholarly record. This statement is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing developed by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME, the publication-ethics expectations used in Scopus title evaluation, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) criteria for conference-proceedings journals, the Web of Science journal-evaluation framework, and Crossref guidance on persistent identifiers and post-publication updates. These standards guide the Journal's procedures; reference to them does not imply endorsement, membership, certification, or a guarantee of indexation.

 

Editorial Procedures

Fair Play

Editors assess manuscripts on scholarly relevance, originality, methodological or argumentative rigor, clarity, research integrity, and contribution to architecture, urbanism, and the built environment. Decisions must not be influenced by an author's nationality, citizenship, race, ethnicity, colour, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, religion, political belief, institutional prestige, career stage, geographic location, or ability to pay. Commercial considerations, conference sponsorship, personal relationships, and anticipated citation performance must not affect editorial judgment.

Editors apply the same published standards to unsolicited, invited, conference-derived, special-collection, and editorial-board submissions. Reasonable accommodations may be made to support accessibility and equitable participation, but scholarly and ethical requirements remain consistent.

Submission and Acceptance Guidelines

The Author Guidelines state the accepted article types, scope, language, formatting, reference style, required declarations, file requirements, and research-ethics obligations. A complete submission must normally include an anonymized manuscript, author and affiliation details, a contributor statement, funding and competing-interest declarations, a data-availability statement, and any ethics approval, consent, permissions, or registration information relevant to the work.

Submissions pass through the following stages:

1. Administrative and technical screening: completeness, readability, file integrity, metadata, authorship declarations, and conformity with the submission requirements.
2. Editorial screening: scope, scholarly level, originality, research-integrity risks, ethical documentation, and suitability for external review.
3. Independent peer review: normally by at least two external subject experts under the Journal's double-anonymized model.
4. Editorial decision: based on the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, applicable policies, and the handling editor's reasoned assessment.
5. Production checks: author approval of the final version, licensing, permissions, metadata, references, DOI registration, and publication declarations.

Conference acceptance, presentation, invitation, sponsorship, registration, or payment does not guarantee journal acceptance. Publication is based on the Journal's independent editorial and peer-review process. The Journal does not guarantee acceptance or promise publication within a time that cannot be supported by its actual workflow.

Content Relevance and Scope Alignment

The Journal publishes original scholarly contributions arising from ICCAUA conferences and related calls in architecture, urban design, urban planning, landscape and interior architecture, building science and technology, heritage, housing, environmental design, urban governance, and other areas stated in the current Aims and Scope.

Editors assess:

• Thematic relevance: a clear relationship to the Journal's published scope and target readership.
• Originality and contribution: a substantiated addition to knowledge, method, theory, practice, design research, policy, or evidence.
• Methodological or argumentative rigor: methods, sources, design processes, analytical procedures, and limitations appropriate to the question addressed.
• Ethical and legal compliance: documented approvals, consent, permissions, privacy protection, and responsible treatment of people, communities, sites, data, images, and cultural knowledge.
• Clarity and metadata quality: an intelligible English title, abstract, keywords, author affiliations, funding details, references, and full text.
• Practical or theoretical significance: a credible explanation of why the work matters to scholarship or professional practice.

Out-of-scope or manifestly underdeveloped submissions may be declined before external review. A desk decision identifies the principal reason and does not imply discrimination against a method, region, institution, or viewpoint. Authors may use the appeal process described below if they believe the policy was applied incorrectly.

Editorial Independence Policy

The Editor-in-Chief and delegated editors have authority over peer review and publication decisions. Alanya University, conference committees, sponsors, partners, donors, advertisers, and service providers may not direct acceptance or rejection, select favourable reviewers for a particular outcome, suppress findings, or delay a correction for reputational or financial reasons.

The publisher supports the Journal's infrastructure and is entitled to require compliance with law and institutional governance, but it may not overturn an academic decision for non-scholarly reasons. Potential legal issues are considered with appropriate advice while preserving editorial independence and due process.

Editorial Decisions and Appeals

Decisions are based on stated criteria and are communicated with sufficient explanation for authors to understand the outcome. An appeal is not a request for another review merely because an author disagrees with a scholarly judgment. It must identify a material factual error, procedural irregularity, undisclosed conflict, evidence of bias, or a substantial misunderstanding that could have affected the decision.

Appeals must be submitted to editor@iccaua.com within 30 calendar days of the decision and include the manuscript ID, decision letter, concise grounds, and supporting evidence. New data or extensive rewriting normally requires a new submission rather than an appeal.

Review of Appeals

• The appeal is assigned to an editor or board member who was not responsible for the original decision and has no relevant conflict of interest.
• The Journal acknowledges receipt and may request clarification or the complete editorial record.
• The independent appeal editor may uphold the decision, recommend reconsideration, obtain an additional expert opinion, or return the manuscript to review.
• The Editor-in-Chief confirms the outcome unless personally conflicted, in which case an independent senior editor makes the final decision.
• One appeal is considered per manuscript. The final outcome and reasons are communicated in writing. A complaint about process or conduct may still be raised under the Investigations and Complaints Policy.

Editorial and Reviewer Accountability Policy

Editors and reviewers must follow the Journal's policies, maintain confidentiality, declare conflicts, avoid discriminatory or coercive conduct, and provide reasoned assessments within an agreed period. The Journal records editorial assignments, reviewer invitations, reports, decisions, recusals, and policy exceptions so that concerns can be examined fairly.

Credible allegations of biased handling, fabricated review, identity misuse, breach of confidentiality, coercive citation, undisclosed AI use, or other misconduct are investigated. Corrective action may include replacing a reviewer, assigning a new editor, obtaining fresh review, correcting the record, removing an individual from the reviewer or editorial database, or notifying an institution when justified and lawful. No sanction is imposed solely on an allegation; relevant parties are given an opportunity to respond.

Multiple Submissions

A manuscript may not be under formal consideration by another journal, proceedings series, book, or primary publication venue at the same time. Redundant publication, undisclosed duplicate publication, and fragmentation of one study into minimally distinct papers are not acceptable.

A prior conference abstract, poster, presentation, thesis, repository manuscript, or preprint does not automatically prevent consideration. It must be disclosed at submission, cited where appropriate, and the submitted article must satisfy the Journal's originality and copyright requirements. Secondary publication or translation may be considered only with prior editorial agreement, permission where required, transparent cross-reference to the primary publication, and a clear benefit to readers.

Policy on Rejecting Unethical or Low-Rigor Submissions

The Journal may reject a manuscript at screening or review when it is outside scope, methodologically or argumentatively inadequate, unreliable, unlawfully prepared, or inconsistent with publication ethics. Provisional acceptance may be withdrawn if material problems emerge before publication. Concerns discovered after publication are handled through correction, expression of concern, retraction, or removal procedures rather than informal deletion.

Section Policies

Section or content type	Normal editorial route	Publication status
Original Research	Editorial screening and at least two independent external double-anonymized reviews	Peer-reviewed scholarly content
Review Articles	Editorial screening and at least two independent external double-anonymized reviews	Peer-reviewed scholarly content
Case Studies	Editorial screening and at least two independent external double-anonymized reviews	Peer-reviewed scholarly content
Monographic Studies	Editorial screening and at least two independent external double-anonymized reviews	Peer-reviewed scholarly content
Conceptual Essays	Editorial screening and at least two independent external double-anonymized reviews	Peer-reviewed scholarly content
Book Reviews, Editorials, Conference Introductions, and Commentary	Editorial review; external review where substantial original scholarly claims require it	Clearly labelled non-research or reviewed content
Corrections, Retractions, Expressions of Concern, and Editorial Notices	Integrity and editorial verification appropriate to the notice	Permanently linked post-publication record

All peer-review exceptions are disclosed on the published item. Special collections and guest-edited content follow the same research-quality and integrity standards as regular submissions.

Resolving Inconsistencies

When reviewer recommendations conflict, the handling editor assesses the reasoning and evidence rather than counting votes. The editor may seek clarification, obtain an additional independent review, consult a statistical, methodological, ethical, linguistic, or practice-based specialist, or request focused revision. The editor records the basis of the decision and ensures that no reviewer with a conflict determines the outcome.

When Journal policies, website pages, metadata records, or published notices conflict, the Editorial Office investigates the source of the discrepancy, corrects all affected locations, records material changes, and communicates with affected authors or readers where necessary.

Publishing Schedule

The Journal is published annually, with the regular issue scheduled for June. The website, ISSN record, issue metadata, author information, and application materials must state the same frequency. The Journal publishes sufficient peer-reviewed scholarly content to demonstrate an active and sustainable annual programme.

If exceptional circumstances delay an issue, the Journal posts a dated notice explaining the revised schedule. Articles are not assigned false publication dates. Each research article displays its publication date and, wherever available, submission, revision, and acceptance dates. Early-online publication is used only when the version is final, citable, assigned complete metadata and a DOI, and its later issue assignment does not alter the DOI or scholarly record.

Ethical Standards and Research Integrity

Ethical Standards and Anti-Bias

All participants in the editorial process must act honestly, respectfully, and without discrimination. Editors and reviewers evaluate the work rather than the identity, reputation, institution, geographic origin, or ideology of the authors. Critical or unconventional conclusions are not grounds for rejection when the work is relevant, ethical, and supported by appropriate evidence and reasoning.

Commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)

The Journal seeks disciplinary, methodological, geographic, cultural, gender, and career-stage diversity among authors, reviewers, and editors. Diversity goals do not alter scholarly standards or justify preferential decisions about individual manuscripts. Accessibility and inclusive language are encouraged, and the Journal periodically reviews its procedures for avoidable barriers and patterns of exclusion.

Policy on Authorship Changes After Submission

Authorship must accurately represent responsibility for the work. Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors require a reason, an updated CRediT contribution statement, and written agreement from all listed, added, and removed authors. The Journal may pause review while a dispute is referred to the authors' institution.

Before Acceptance

The corresponding author submits the request through the editorial system or to the Editorial Office. The handling editor verifies consent and the contribution statement. Approval is not automatic and may be refused if the request suggests gift, guest, ghost, purchased, or fraudulent authorship.

After Acceptance but Before Publication

Changes are considered only with a compelling explanation, written agreement from every affected author, and confirmation that the integrity and accountability of the work remain intact. Production may be paused while the request is assessed.

After Publication

Authorship changes require a formal, linked correction. The Journal does not silently replace the author list. If consent cannot be obtained or misconduct is suspected, the Journal may consult the authors' institutions and publish an editorial note, expression of concern, correction, or retraction as appropriate.

Dispute Resolution

The Journal does not determine who made a contribution when authors disagree and evidence cannot be resolved editorially. It requests an institutional or other competent determination and preserves the record while that process proceeds. Editors may take interim action to protect readers.

Authorship and Contributor Order

An author must satisfy all of the following conditions: make a substantial scholarly contribution; participate in drafting or critically revising the work; approve the version to be published; and accept accountability for the integrity of the contribution and the work as a whole. CRediT roles describe contributions but do not by themselves create authorship.

Author order is agreed by the authors and should reflect disciplinary practice and actual contributions. Equal contribution or joint supervision may be identified transparently. Contributors who do not meet authorship criteria are acknowledged with their permission. AI systems, language models, organizations without accountable human representatives, and persons who did not contribute may not be listed as authors.

Geographical Diversity & Global South / Emerging Hubs Engagement Policy

The Journal encourages scholarship from underrepresented regions and supports fair access through targeted calls, clear guidance, and constructive communication. Editors must not assume that institutional prestige, country income level, or English-language fluency predicts research quality. Where feasible, editorial support may help authors improve presentation, but editors and reviewers may not rewrite findings, conceal deficiencies, or lower evidentiary standards.

Gender Equity and Inclusion Policy

The Journal works toward balanced and inclusive participation across its governance, reviewer pool, and authorship community. Invitations and appointments are based on expertise, relevance, ethical conduct, and the value of diverse perspectives. Any monitoring uses lawful, proportionate, and preferably self-described data and does not influence individual editorial decisions.

Commitment to Responsible Research Assessment (DORA)

The Journal supports the principles of responsible research assessment associated with the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA): articles and contributors are evaluated on the quality and substance of the work rather than journal-level metrics, institutional prestige, or proxy rankings. This policy does not state that the Journal is a DORA signatory unless its name appears in DORA's official signatory record.

Allegations of Research Misconduct

Anyone may report suspected fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, authorship fraud, undeclared competing interests, unethical research, peer-review manipulation, paper-mill activity, citation manipulation, or other serious misconduct to editor@iccaua.com. Reports may concern submitted or published work and may be made confidentially; anonymous evidence is assessed on its substance.

The Journal will:

1. Preserve relevant records and assess whether the allegation is specific, credible, and within the Journal's remit.
2. Manage conflicts and appoint an unconflicted editor or panel.
3. Inform the respondent of the material concern and request an explanation and supporting records when appropriate.
4. Seek confidential expert advice and, where necessary, contact institutions, funders, ethics bodies, data custodians, or other journals.
5. Avoid conducting an institutional investigation that exceeds the Journal's competence, while acting to protect the publication record.
6. Communicate a reasoned outcome and apply proportionate action, including rejection, correction, expression of concern, retraction, reviewer replacement, or notification to relevant bodies.

The identity of a complainant is protected as far as possible, subject to law, fairness, and the need to investigate. Retaliation against good-faith complainants is not tolerated.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Authors, editors, reviewers, guest editors, and other decision-makers must disclose interests that could reasonably be perceived to influence the work or its evaluation. Relevant interests may be:

• Financial: funding, employment, consultancies, shares, honoraria, paid testimony, gifts, or travel support.
• Affiliations: current or recent institutional, commercial, community, political, or organizational relationships.
• Intellectual property: patents, design rights, copyrights, licensing interests, or proprietary methods.
• Personal: family, close personal, adversarial, or supervisory relationships.
• Ideological: commitments that create a direct and material conflict with the manuscript under consideration.
• Academic: recent collaboration, direct competition, mentorship, institutional overlap, or disputes.

Authors include a Competing Interests statement in the manuscript. If none exist, they state: “The authors declare no competing interests.” Editors and reviewers declare conflicts before accepting an assignment and recuse when impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Disclosure does not automatically imply wrongdoing; nondisclosure may require reassignment, correction, rejection, or other action.

Funding Disclosure Policy

Every manuscript states all financial and material support and, where applicable, funder names, grant numbers, and the funder's role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, writing, and publication. If the funder had no such role, that is stated. If no external funding was received, authors state: “This research received no external funding.” Funding and waiver status do not influence editorial decisions.

Data Fabrication and Falsification

Fabrication is the creation of data, sources, observations, participants, results, or records that did not exist. Falsification includes selective omission, manipulation, misrepresentation, inappropriate image alteration, invented citations, misleading statistical treatment, or alteration of research processes or materials that distorts the record.

Authors must retain reliable source records and provide relevant data, images, field notes, protocols, code, permissions, or audit information when reasonably requested, subject to privacy, security, cultural, contractual, and legal restrictions. Editors do not assume misconduct from an anomaly alone. Suspicions are examined using appropriate expertise and due process; confirmed misconduct may lead to rejection, correction, retraction, and institutional notification.

Policy of Screening for Plagiarism

Submissions may be screened with iThenticate or another appropriately tested similarity service. A similarity score is an indicator, not a finding of plagiarism. An editor reviews the matched passages in context and considers quotation, citation, methods language, preprints, theses, translations, and legitimate reuse.

Plagiarism, unattributed paraphrase, unauthorized translation, duplicate publication, misleading text recycling, and appropriation of ideas, images, plans, maps, models, datasets, or design work are prohibited. Authors must cite and obtain permission for third-party material where required. The Journal may request correction, reject the manuscript, contact relevant institutions, or correct or retract a published work according to the seriousness and evidence.

Policy on Academic–Practitioner Co-authorship

Collaboration between scholars and architects, planners, designers, engineers, policymakers, community organizations, and other practitioners is welcome when each author meets the authorship criteria. Professional status, access to a project, funding, or general supervision alone is insufficient for authorship. Contributions, client or employer relationships, permissions, confidentiality obligations, and competing interests must be disclosed.

Policy on Ethical Committee Approval

Research involving human participants, identifiable personal information, interventions, surveys, interviews, focus groups, behavioural observation, vulnerable groups, animals, or other regulated activity must receive prospective approval or documented exemption from a competent ethics body when required by applicable institutional, national, or disciplinary rules.

The manuscript states the approving body, reference number, date, and consent procedure in the Methods or an Ethics Statement. Authors must also address permissions for identifiable images, voices, quotations, location data, private spaces, culturally sensitive information, community knowledge, protected heritage sites, and material whose disclosure could create risk. Lack of a formal committee at an author's institution does not remove the duty to follow applicable ethical and legal requirements.

Data Sharing and Reproducibility

All research articles include a Data Availability Statement. Authors are encouraged to follow FAIR principles and deposit data, code, protocols, models, instruments, and relevant supplementary material in a trustworthy repository with a persistent identifier.

Open sharing is not required when it would breach participant consent, privacy, security, cultural or community obligations, legal duties, intellectual-property rights, or legitimate contractual restrictions. In such cases, the statement explains the restriction and, where possible, a controlled-access route. Editors may request confidential access for verification. The Journal does not require authors to make sensitive geolocation, building-security, personal, indigenous, or community-controlled data openly available.

Retrospective Ethical Review Policy

When prospective ethics review was required at the time the research began, approval obtained only after the research was conducted does not normally cure the deficiency. The Journal distinguishes a genuine, rule-based exemption from an attempt to obtain retrospective approval.

1 Scope of Non-Acceptance

Research conducted without required prospective approval, consent, authorization, or legal permission may be rejected. If the omission is discovered after publication, the Journal assesses the reliability of the work and risk to participants or communities and may issue an expression of concern, correction, or retraction.

2 Narrow, Policy-Based Exemptions (Not “Case-by-Case” Discretion)

Work may proceed without a committee approval letter only when the applicable framework in force at the start of the study did not require review or formally classified the work as exempt. Examples can include analysis of fully anonymized public data, non-interventional observation in public space without identifiable personal data, and unrestricted public-domain archival material. The exact exemption depends on the governing rules, not on the author's or editor's preference.

3 Author Responsibilities for Exemption Claims

Authors provide the legal, institutional, or ethics-body basis for exemption and describe privacy, consent, and risk safeguards. Where available, a formal exemption determination is submitted. Misrepresentation of an exemption is treated as a research-integrity concern.

4 Editorial Verification

The handling editor checks whether the documentation is coherent and may seek independent ethics advice. Uncertain cases may be referred to the relevant institution or ethics body. Authors may appeal a decision by providing evidence that the applicable rule was misunderstood; an appeal cannot create retrospective approval where prior approval was required.

Policies on the Use of Generative AI (GenAI)

The Journal's AI policy applies to authors, reviewers, editors, and production staff. Human participants remain responsible for accuracy, originality, confidentiality, permissions, citations, and decisions. Automated output is not treated as authoritative evidence and may not replace scholarly judgment.

For Authors

• Generative AI and automated tools cannot be authors because they cannot consent, hold rights, disclose conflicts, or accept accountability.
• Authors disclose substantive use of generative AI in preparing text, code, analysis, translations, images, or other content, naming the tool and version where available and explaining its purpose and human verification. Straightforward spelling, grammar, reference-formatting, and accessibility assistance need not be described unless it materially changes content.
• Authors verify facts, calculations, citations, permissions, and originality. AI-generated references or output may not be cited as a primary source merely because the system produced them.
• Authors must not enter confidential, personal, copyrighted, culturally restricted, security-sensitive, or otherwise protected material into a tool without lawful authority and appropriate safeguards.
• AI use that fabricates, obscures, manipulates, or misrepresents research is misconduct.

A suitable disclosure is: “During preparation of this work, the author(s) used [tool and version] for [purpose]. The author(s) reviewed and verified the output and accept full responsibility for the published content.”

Generative AI Images

Images created solely for decorative or evidentiary use by generative AI are not accepted because provenance, consent, accuracy, and rights may be unclear. When generative imagery is itself the object or method of research, it may be considered if it is essential, clearly labelled, reproducible where possible, lawfully created, and accompanied by disclosure of the system, settings or prompts appropriate to the study. AI-assisted enhancement of an existing image must be disclosed and must not conceal, add, remove, or distort relevant information.

AI Use by Reviewers

Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscript text, images, data, supplementary files, or confidential correspondence to public or third-party generative AI systems. They must not use AI to generate reviews or editorial decisions. Limited language editing of a review may be permitted only without exposing confidential content and with disclosure to the editor. Routine journal use of automated similarity, image-integrity, reviewer-suggestion, or metadata tools is human-supervised, appropriately tested, and disclosed where material.

Manuscript Withdrawal by the Authors

Before a final decision, the corresponding author may request withdrawal in writing, providing the manuscript ID, title, reason, and confirmation that all authors agree. After acceptance, the Journal may require clarification to protect the integrity of the record, but it charges no withdrawal fee. Once the version of record is published, it is not privately deleted at an author's request; corrections, retractions, or rare removal are handled under the post-publication policy.

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Statement

Scholarly articles undergo double-anonymized review by at least two independent external experts who are not members of the Journal's editorial team and have no disqualifying conflict. The editorial office knows the authors' identities for administration; reviewers do not receive identifying author information, and authors do not receive reviewer identities.

Authors must anonymize the manuscript and file properties. Editors select reviewers for relevant expertise, independence, and ability to provide an evidence-based assessment. Author-suggested reviewers may be considered but are independently verified and are never guaranteed. Reviewer identities, email domains, affiliations, publication histories, and unusual recommendation patterns may be checked to prevent fraudulent peer review.

Reviewers assess relevance, originality, methods or argument, ethical compliance, presentation, references, limitations, and contribution. Supplementary material that supports the scholarly claims is included in review when feasible. The handling editor evaluates the reports and makes a recommendation; the Editor-in-Chief or delegated unconflicted editor makes or confirms the decision. Reviewer votes do not replace editorial judgment.

Author and Reviewer Communication

Communication is professional, timely, confidential, and recorded in the editorial system where practicable. Decision letters distinguish required revisions from recommendations, consolidate contradictory comments, and exclude abusive or discriminatory language. Authors respond point by point and identify changes. Reviewers receive appropriate instructions and should be informed when a manuscript is withdrawn or when their report is no longer required. When delay becomes material, authors are informed and may withdraw without charge.

Publication and Post-Publication Policies

Citation Policies

Citations must be accurate, relevant, proportionate, and based on scholarly need. Authors should cite the primary and most appropriate sources and fairly represent relevant perspectives. Editors and reviewers must not require citations primarily to increase citations to themselves, their associates, the Journal, a publisher, or a coordinated group of titles.

The Journal uses no automatic numerical quota for self-citation or citation of a particular author. Unusually concentrated, irrelevant, or reciprocal citation patterns may be queried and must be justified by the intellectual content. Confirmed citation manipulation can lead to reviewer removal, manuscript rejection, correction, retraction, or notification of relevant institutions or indexing services.

Citation Policy on Referencing Other Authors' Works

Authors may cite as many works by an external author as are genuinely required by the topic; arbitrary limits can distort the literature. Reviewers may identify important omissions but must explain their relevance. Requests to cite the reviewer's work are evaluated by the editor and removed if coercive, excessive, or unnecessary. References must be verified against the cited source, and inaccessible or AI-invented references are prohibited.

Retraction and Correction Policy

The Journal corrects the record promptly, transparently, and proportionately. Minor typographical changes that do not affect meaning may be corrected in place with a dated note. Editorially significant changes are documented through a separate, freely accessible notice with its own citation and DOI where appropriate. Notices link bidirectionally to the affected article, identify what changed and why, and preserve author and institutional due process.

Retraction may be warranted when findings are unreliable because of major error or misconduct, the work is redundant without disclosure, unethical research invalidates the publication, peer review was manipulated, authorship is fraudulent, or legal or rights problems make the work unsafe or invalid. Retraction is not used to punish authors or erase controversial findings.

Retraction Process

Investigation Initiation

A concern may be raised by an author, reader, reviewer, editor, institution, funder, data custodian, or other party. The Journal preserves the relevant record, screens the concern, manages conflicts, and determines whether interim action is needed.

Inquiry and Evaluation

The Journal requests responses and evidence from relevant parties, may consult independent experts, and may refer questions of misconduct to competent institutions. Confidentiality is maintained as far as fairness and law permit. A conflicted editor or publisher representative takes no part in the determination.

Decision and Communication

The decision is based on the reliability and integrity of the article, not solely on whether authors agree. Authors receive the proposed action and a reasonable opportunity to respond. The Journal may correct, retract, partially retract where supported, issue an expression of concern, take no action, or await an external investigation while protecting readers.

Retraction Notice

A retraction notice is clearly labelled, states who is retracting the article and the factual reason, identifies the affected article, distinguishes error from misconduct when established, and avoids defamatory language. The original article remains accessible unless rare removal criteria apply; every online version is clearly marked as retracted and linked to the notice. Metadata and the article title are updated so that Crossref, discovery systems, libraries, and indexes can identify the status.

Corrections and Errata

Minor Corrections (Errata)

Errors that do not affect interpretation, attribution, results, or metadata may be corrected transparently in the online version with a dated note. Pure formatting corrections may not require a separate notice.

Major Corrections

Errors that materially affect a section, result, author information, funding statement, data link, figure, or interpretation but do not invalidate the work require a separate correction or corrigendum linked to the article. The notice describes the change and its effect on the conclusions. The original DOI remains persistent.

Expression of Concern

An expression of concern may be issued when credible evidence suggests a serious problem but the investigation is incomplete, inconclusive, delayed, or controlled by another body. It is linked to the article and later replaced or supplemented by a final notice.

Article Removal

Removal is exceptional and may occur only when continued access presents a serious legal violation, court-ordered restriction, unlawful personal-data exposure, immediate and substantial risk of harm, or technically harmful content. A tombstone page and metadata record remain, explaining the reason to the extent legally possible. Removal is not used to conceal error, criticism, or misconduct.

Follow-up and Indexing

The Journal registers significant updates and relationships in Crossref metadata, updates article landing pages and downloadable files, and notifies relevant preservation and indexing services where appropriate. Corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern remain permanently accessible. The Journal periodically checks that links, DOI resolutions, licences, and status labels are accurate.

Post-publication Discussions

Readers may submit a letter, commentary, data-based critique, or integrity concern to the Editorial Office. Evidence-based discussion is welcomed regardless of whether it appears through the Journal, an institution, or a responsible external forum such as PubPeer. Authors are normally invited to respond. Substantive matters are linked to the article through a correction, reply, editorial note, expression of concern, or retraction when warranted. Criticism is not suppressed merely because it is uncomfortable or may affect reputation.

CrossMark Policy

The Journal uses article landing pages and Crossref metadata to communicate the current status of content. Crossmark is displayed only after the Journal has completed the required implementation: a registered update-policy page, Crossmark metadata for all applicable new content, the official Crossmark button in each digital format, and prompt registration of corrections, retractions, withdrawals, and other significant updates. The Journal will not display an altered or selective Crossmark badge or claim Crossmark participation before these requirements are met.

Access, Licensing, and Archiving

Open Access Policy

All Journal content is immediately available without subscription, payment, registration, or embargo. Users may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, link to, text-and-data mine, and otherwise reuse the content for lawful purposes under CC BY 4.0. Each article has an individual landing page and accessible full text. Any third-party material not covered by the article's licence is clearly credited with its separate rights status.

Repository Policy

Authors may deposit the submitted manuscript, accepted manuscript, and Version of Record in an institutional, subject, funder, or general repository without embargo. The Version of Record should include the full citation, DOI, licence, and link to the Journal landing page. Repository deposit does not transfer copyright away from the author.

General Repositories

When no suitable institutional or disciplinary repository is available, authors may use established general repositories such as Zenodo, OSF, Figshare, Harvard Dataverse, Dryad, or another service appropriate to the data, rights, sensitivity, and preservation needs. Repository names are examples, not endorsements; authors must check current terms, costs, licences, access controls, and preservation arrangements.

Self-archiving Policy

There is no embargo on lawful self-archiving. Authors may post permitted versions on personal or departmental websites and scholarly networks, provided the source and version are clear and the Version of Record is cited. Any third-party material excluded from CC BY 4.0 must remain subject to its original permission terms.

Archiving Digital Version

The Journal uses the PKP Preservation Network (PKP PN), as reflected in the Keepers Registry/ISSN preservation record, for long-term preservation of deposited issues. The publisher maintains operational backups in addition to preservation deposits. The Journal monitors deposit status and corrects missing or failed deposits so content remains accessible if the website or publisher changes or ceases operation.

Article Processing Charge

The Journal charges no submission fee, editorial-processing fee, article processing charge (APC), page charge, colour charge, language-editing fee, membership fee, or withdrawal fee. If conference registration or participation fees apply, they are disclosed separately on the event website, cover conference services rather than editorial acceptance, and do not influence peer-review or publication decisions. Any future author charge or waiver must be announced clearly before submission and reflected consistently on all relevant Journal pages and application records.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI) Policy

Accepted and published scholarly articles and significant post-publication notices receive a DOI registered through Crossref under the prefix 10.38027. A DOI is assigned only to a finalized publishable record, not merely because a manuscript passed initial screening. DOI metadata include the serial title, ISSN, authors, affiliations, title, abstract where supported, publication dates, licence, funding data when available, references, URL, and relationships to corrections or retractions. DOI strings remain persistent; metadata and resolution URLs are updated when necessary.

Intellectual Property and Copyright

Policies on Intellectual Property

Authors must respect copyright, database rights, moral rights, design rights, trademarks, traditional and community knowledge, privacy, confidentiality, and contractual restrictions. They obtain and retain permission for material not owned by them or not available under a compatible licence. Sources of drawings, plans, maps, photographs, images, datasets, instruments, code, and substantial quotations are credited accurately.

The Journal investigates credible intellectual-property concerns and may pause review or publication while rights are clarified. Disputes requiring legal determination may be referred to the relevant institutions or rights holders.

Copyright

Authors retain copyright in their articles. By publication, authors grant the Journal and Alanya University a non-exclusive right to publish, identify the Journal as the original place of publication, distribute the Version of Record, register and maintain metadata, preserve the work, and act on corrections or retractions. Copyright statements in HTML and PDF identify the author(s) as the copyright holder unless a lawful alternative is clearly stated.

Licensing

Journal articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. The licence permits sharing and adaptation for any purpose, including commercial use, provided users give appropriate credit, link to the licence, and indicate whether changes were made. Licence information is displayed on the website and in the full text of each article.

Key Principles

• Attribution: cite the author(s), article title, Journal, DOI or official URL, and licence.
• Indication of changes: clearly identify modifications, translations, or adaptations.
• No implied endorsement: reuse must not suggest that authors or the Journal endorse the user or adaptation.
• No additional restrictions: users may not apply legal or technological measures that prevent uses permitted by CC BY 4.0.
• Third-party content: material identified as excluded from CC BY 4.0 requires separate permission.
• Licence continuity: the licence cannot be revoked for compliant uses already made.

Ownership

The serial was founded by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hourakhsh Ahmad Nia and is published by Alanya University. The website must state ownership, publisher, management, and institutional relationships clearly and consistently without implying an affiliation or endorsement that does not exist. Editorial authority is exercised independently under the Editorial Independence Policy.

Administration and Transparency

Governing Body

The Editorial Board is the Journal's scholarly governing and advisory body. It includes the Editor-in-Chief and editors whose current names, roles, institutional affiliations, and relevant expertise are published on the Editorial Team page. Members must agree to serve, keep their details current, declare conflicts, and contribute to editorial quality and policy oversight. The board is reviewed periodically for expertise, activity, independence, disciplinary coverage, and geographic and gender diversity.

Investigations and Complaints Policy

Complaints may concern editorial conduct, peer review, discrimination, conflicts, authorship, plagiarism, data or image integrity, unethical research, privacy, copyright, corrections, or other Journal operations. Complaints are handled respectfully, confidentially, and by a person without a relevant conflict. The Journal distinguishes a complaint about service or procedure from an allegation of research misconduct and applies the appropriate route.

Reporting Ethical Concerns and Allegations

Reports should be sent to editor@iccaua.com and include the article or manuscript identifier, the specific concern, and available evidence. Anonymous reports are considered when sufficiently specific. The Journal acknowledges receipt, preserves records, informs affected parties when appropriate, and protects personal information as far as possible.

Complaint Handling Process

1. The Editorial Office records and acknowledges the complaint.
2. An unconflicted editor determines scope, urgency, and whether interim action is needed.
3. Relevant parties are invited to respond, and independent advice may be sought.
4. The Journal communicates a reasoned outcome and any corrective action.
5. A complainant may request one internal review by identifying a procedural or factual error. If the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the publisher appoints an independent senior scholar or panel.

Indicative response targets are seven working days for acknowledgment and 30 calendar days for an initial outcome; complex institutional investigations may take longer, in which case the parties receive periodic updates.

Privacy Statement

Names, email addresses, affiliations, ORCID iDs, declarations, manuscripts, reviews, and other personal information are used for submission, peer review, publication, integrity, preservation, indexing, and related scholarly communication. Access is limited to persons and service providers who need the information for these purposes, subject to confidentiality and security obligations. Information may be disclosed when required by law, necessary to investigate misconduct, or needed to protect the scholarly record.

The Journal does not sell personal data. Its full Privacy Statement explains the legal basis, retention, security, international processing where applicable, cookies, user rights, and contact route under applicable data-protection law. Peer-review files are confidential and are retained only as long as needed for editorial, integrity, legal, and archival purposes.

Journal's Revenue Sources

The Journal is institutionally supported by the Rectorate of Alanya University and does not rely on APCs, subscriptions, advertising, reprint sales, or paid editorial decisions. Any conference income is administered separately from manuscript decisions. Revenue sources, sponsorships, subsidies, in-kind support, and advertising arrangements must be disclosed accurately. Financial supporters have no authority over peer review, acceptance, correction, or retraction.

ORCID Number

Authors are strongly encouraged to provide authenticated ORCID iDs during submission, and editors and reviewers are encouraged to maintain them. ORCID helps distinguish contributors and connect publications with affiliations and funding. An ORCID iD is not used as a quality criterion, and absence of one does not by itself determine acceptance. The Journal publishes an ORCID only with appropriate authorization and deposits authenticated identifiers in metadata where supported.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in published articles belong to the authors and do not necessarily represent the Journal, Editorial Board, conference organizers, Alanya University, partners, or sponsors. Authors are responsible for the accuracy, legality, permissions, ethical conduct, and conclusions of their work. Peer review reduces but cannot eliminate error.

The Journal and publisher will correct the scholarly record when warranted and do not use this disclaimer to avoid duties imposed by law, publication-ethics standards, contracts, or the Journal's own policies. External links are provided for reference; the Journal is not responsible for third-party content or continued availability. Published material is scholarly information and is not a substitute for project-specific professional, legal, medical, safety, or financial advice.

Duties

Duties of Editors

Editors safeguard the integrity, quality, fairness, timeliness, and independence of the publication process. They protect confidential material; select qualified, independent reviewers; assess reports critically; document decisions; manage conflicts; correct the record; and treat authors, reviewers, staff, and complainants respectfully. Editors do not use unpublished ideas or data for personal advantage and do not manipulate citations or metrics.

Policy on the Selection of New Editorial Board Members

Members are selected for relevant expertise, ethical standing, publication and review experience, independence, and ability to contribute. Appointments also consider disciplinary, methodological, institutional, geographic, gender, and career-stage diversity. The Journal verifies identity and affiliation, obtains consent to serve, defines the role and term, and removes outdated or inactive listings.

Compliance with COPE Guidelines Policy

Editors use COPE guidance and the Journal's documented procedures when addressing publication-ethics cases. The Journal does not claim COPE membership unless membership can be verified in COPE's official record. Where discipline, law, or evidence requires a different course, the reason is documented and the principles of fairness, confidentiality, transparency, and record integrity are preserved.

Conflict-of-Interest Handling Policy

An editor with a financial, institutional, collaborative, supervisory, personal, competitive, or other material conflict must declare it and take no part in reviewer selection, correspondence, access beyond administrative necessity, or the decision. The Editor-in-Chief assigns an independent editor; if the Editor-in-Chief is conflicted, the publisher or board appoints an independent senior editor.

Policy on Institutional Conflict of Interest for Editorial Board Members

Submissions from an editor's current institution, department, close research group, recent collaborators, students, or supervisors are assigned to an editor without those ties. Institutional overlap is assessed by recency and closeness rather than by name alone, and all recusals are recorded.

Voluntary Service Policy

Editorial service is normally voluntary and unpaid unless a different arrangement is disclosed. Reimbursement, honoraria, or contracted work, if introduced, must be transparent and may not depend on acceptance numbers, citation performance, or favourable decisions.

Policy on Special Issues and Guest-Edited Volumes

Special collections must fall within scope and be approved by the Editor-in-Chief. Guest editors are selected after verification of expertise, affiliation, conflicts, and capacity. The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for the collection; normal author guidelines, external peer review, ethics screening, and post-publication policies apply.

Guest editors may not handle their own papers or papers from close collaborators or institutions. Such submissions receive independent editorial handling. Papers authored by guest editors must not exceed 25% of the collection, and all peer-review exceptions or relationships are disclosed. The Journal may discontinue a collection if integrity, quality, or schedule cannot be maintained.

Editorial Authorship Limitation Policy

The Journal minimizes endogeny. In each of the two most recent issues, articles with at least one author who is a current editor, editorial-board member, or regular reviewer must remain below DOAJ's maximum of 25%. Such papers receive independent handling and the published article identifies the process where appropriate. No exception may compromise review independence.

Policy on Editorial Submissions and Independent Handling

An editor-author has no access to reviewer identities, reports, internal discussion, or decisions beyond what an ordinary author receives. An independent editor controls the complete workflow and selects external reviewers without consultation with the author-editor. The article includes a conflict and handling statement.

Policy on Applying for Editorial Board Membership

The Journal may consider expressions of interest from scholars whose expertise matches its scope. Applicants provide a current CV, affiliation, ORCID where available, relevant experience, and a declaration of interests. Appointment is not purchased, guaranteed, or based solely on metrics. Decisions consider scholarly suitability, ethical record, board needs, diversity, and capacity to serve; accepted members confirm the role and policies in writing.

Commitment to Open Science and Ethical Publishing Policy

Editors encourage transparent methods, data and code availability where lawful and ethical, preprints, replication, registered reports or protocols where suitable, and accurate reporting of null or negative results. Openness does not override privacy, safety, intellectual property, community governance, or legal obligations. Publication decisions do not depend on whether findings are positive, fashionable, or likely to attract citations.

Duties of Authors

Authors must:

• submit original work and disclose related manuscripts, preprints, abstracts, theses, datasets, and overlapping publications;
• describe methods, sources, design processes, analyses, and limitations honestly and sufficiently;
• retain and provide supporting records when reasonably requested;
• obtain ethics approval, consent, permissions, licences, and site or community authorization where required;
• identify all qualifying authors, acknowledge other contributors with permission, and provide CRediT roles;
• approve the submitted and final versions and remain accountable for the work;
• disclose funding, competing interests, AI use, and material assistance;
• use accurate, relevant citations and avoid plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate submission, citation manipulation, and authorship misconduct;
• respond promptly to editorial queries and cooperate with corrections or retractions.

Self-citation policy: self-citations must be relevant and proportionate. The Journal does not apply a fixed percentage ceiling, because necessary rates differ by topic and method. Editors may query concentrated or tangential self-citation and will act on evidence of metric manipulation.

Duties of Reviewers

Reviewers provide independent advice to editors and constructive guidance to authors. A reviewer must accept only work within their competence, meet or renegotiate the deadline, disclose conflicts, protect confidentiality, evaluate the work objectively, identify major ethical or originality concerns, and avoid personal criticism or coercive citation.

Use of AI Tools

Reviewers may not upload confidential manuscript material to generative AI or use AI to create the intellectual content of a review. Any permitted language-only assistance must not disclose manuscript content and must be reported to the editor. The reviewer remains fully responsible for every statement in the report.

Timeliness and Objectivity

Reviewers notify the editor promptly if they cannot complete a competent review. Reports should distinguish major and minor issues, support conclusions with evidence, and assess methods, reasoning, reporting, and contribution rather than author identity or presumed reputation.

Ethical Conduct and Confidentiality

Manuscripts and related files are confidential before and after review. Reviewers may not share them, use unpublished material, contact authors directly, seek to identify authors, or exploit information for personal, academic, political, or commercial advantage. Suspected misconduct is reported privately to the editor.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers decline when financial interests, recent collaboration, direct competition, institutional ties, supervision, close personal relationships, or strong adversarial positions could impair impartiality. When uncertain, they disclose the situation and allow the editor to decide.

Citation Practices

Suggested references must be essential to accuracy, context, or method. Reviewers must not demand citation of their own work, the Journal, or associates for prestige or metric gain. Editors remove coercive or irrelevant requests.

Compliance and Originality

Reviewers consider scope, originality, ethical documentation, research design, data or source integrity, analysis, limitations, reporting, and the conclusions supported by the work. They alert the editor to substantial overlap, implausible data, manipulated images, fabricated references, or possible concurrent submission, without conducting intrusive investigations on their own.

Adherence to COPE Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and this Journal's instructions. Acceptance of an invitation confirms that the reviewer understands the confidentiality, conflict, objectivity, and integrity obligations.

Policy on Reviewer Misconduct and Fraudulent Peer Review

The Journal verifies reviewer identity and may investigate false accounts, identity theft, fabricated reviews, undisclosed conflicts, confidentiality breaches, plagiarism, coercive citation, review rings, and manipulation of suggested reviewers. Affected manuscripts may be re-reviewed. Confirmed misconduct can lead to removal from the database and notification of institutions or other journals when justified.

Policy on Editorial Submissions and Reviewer Independence

Reviewers of an editorial-board submission are selected and managed by an independent editor. The author-editor cannot recommend, contact, identify, or influence reviewers and receives only the same correspondence available to other authors.

Policy on Reviewer Performance Monitoring

Editors assess reports for timeliness, specificity, methodological competence, constructiveness, bias, confidentiality, and policy compliance. The Journal may provide guidance, pause invitations, or remove reviewers whose reports are repeatedly late, superficial, abusive, or unethical. Decisions are based on documented performance rather than disagreement with an editor.

Policy on Adherence to COPE Ethical Review Guidelines

The Journal provides reviewers with the current instructions and a link to COPE guidance. Material breaches are documented and investigated. Sanctions are proportionate and allow the reviewer to respond unless immediate suspension is necessary to protect manuscripts or participants.

Universal Peer-Review Policy

All original scholarly research, review articles, case studies, monographic studies, and conceptual essays receive external peer review before acceptance, including invited, conference-selected, editor-authored, and special-collection papers. Editorials, book reviews, conference introductions, and post-publication notices may receive editorial review; they are clearly labelled, and any external review is stated on the item. No conference role, payment, or invitation exempts scholarly content from review.

Policy on Managing Revisions and Reviewer Disagreements

Authors submit a point-by-point response and a clearly identified revised manuscript. The handling editor determines whether re-review is necessary. Reviewer disagreement is resolved by evaluating the quality of the arguments, seeking clarification or another expert when needed, and documenting the final scholarly judgment. A reviewer does not gain veto power by repeating an unsupported demand.

Duties of the Publisher

Alanya University provides the institutional framework and resources needed for editorial independence, secure operation, long-term preservation, transparent policies, and correction of the scholarly record. It ensures that ownership, publisher address, contact information, revenue, fees, licences, and governance are stated accurately and that commercial or institutional interests do not control editorial decisions.

Editorial Independence Policy

The publisher protects the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board from improper interference and does not tie resources, remuneration, or performance assessment to acceptance rates, citations, or favourable coverage. A publisher conflict is referred to an independent authority or panel.

Research Integrity and Ethical Oversight Policy

The publisher supports evidence preservation, confidential investigations, institutional communication, legal and ethics advice where necessary, and publication of corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and apologies. It does not suppress substantiated concerns to protect reputation.

Open-Access Stewardship and Licensing Policy

The publisher maintains immediate open access under CC BY 4.0, ensures that author copyright and licence information appear in HTML and PDF, and does not impose undisclosed access barriers or author charges. Machine-readable licence metadata is deposited where supported.

Technological Infrastructure and Accessibility Policy

The Journal operates on OJS over HTTPS and maintains reasonable security, access control, backup, preservation, and recovery procedures. The publisher works toward recognized web-accessibility practices and responds promptly to malware, unauthorized content, broken links, metadata errors, and other threats to readers or the Journal's integrity.

Open Science and Reproducibility Policy

The publisher supports repository linking, persistent identifiers, funding and affiliation metadata, ORCID, data citations, supplementary files, and transparent availability statements. It does not require disclosure of data that would violate ethics, law, safety, privacy, or community rights.

Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement Policy

At least annually, the Journal reviews its website, policies, editorial-board details, peer-review records, publication timeliness, fees, licensing, preservation status, DOI resolution, correction links, security, and metadata against current COPE, DOAJ, Scopus, Web of Science, and Crossref guidance. Inaccurate claims and outdated links are corrected, and significant policy changes are dated.

Environmental and Social Responsibility Policy

The electronic-only workflow reduces avoidable printing and travel-related burdens. Environmental claims must be evidence-based. The publisher also supports accessible content, inclusive editorial practices, and respectful engagement with communities affected by published research.

Publisher Address

Alanya University
Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Department of Architecture
Cikcilli District, Saraybeleni Street No:7
07400 Alanya, Antalya, Türkiye
Editorial contact: editor@iccaua.com
Telephone: +90 506 189 99 66

Standards and Reference Framework

• Scopus content policy and selection
• Scopus guidance on Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statements
• DOAJ Guide to Applying
• Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
• Web of Science Journal Evaluation Process and Selection Criteria
• Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index Evaluation
• COPE Guidance and Core Practices
• Crossref Crossmark
• Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

Implementation principle: This statement is effective only when the Journal's website, editorial records, published articles, metadata, and actual practice consistently follow it. Indexing decisions remain solely with the relevant indexing organization.