Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Publication Policies
Smart Design Policies maintains a strict adherence to best practices in academic publishing. We follow internationally recognized guidelines for transparency and quality as endorsed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA).

 

Editorial Procedures

Fair Play

We review all submitted manuscripts based solely on their scholarly merit. Factors such as the author’s age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, nationality, or political views do not influence the evaluation process.

Submission and Acceptance Guidelines
Detailed instructions for preparing, formatting, and referencing manuscripts, as well as ethical requirements, are provided to ensure a seamless review. These criteria are consistently upheld, focusing on the research’s caliber, pertinence, and ethical integrity. Our ethical oversight includes measures against plagiarism, data fabrication, and conflicts of interest.

Content Relevance and Scope Alignment
Smart Design Policies is dedicated to disseminating research that advances knowledge in smart design policies and practices. We strictly abide by our defined aims and scope, only considering manuscripts directly relevant to our focus. Submissions outside this scope will be declined to preserve thematic coherence and offer meaningful content to our readership.

Appeals and Complaints Policy

Appeals:
Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions if they believe their manuscript has not been fairly or accurately evaluated. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office, accompanied by a detailed and reasoned response to the reviewer and/or editor comments.

• Appeals will be reviewed by an editor not directly involved in the original decision or, where appropriate, by the Editorial Board.

• All appeals are reassessed according to the same rigorous standards applied during the initial review process.

• The outcome of an appeal may confirm the original decision, invite further revision, or overturn the decision.

• Authors will be notified of the appeal outcome in a clear and timely manner.

Complaints:
The journal welcomes complaints relating to editorial conduct, peer review procedures, ethical concerns, or any other matter that affects the integrity of the publication process.

• Complaints should be submitted by email to editor@smartdpj.com with all relevant details.

• All complaints are handled confidentially and investigated according to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines.

• The process may involve consultation with members of the Editorial Board or external experts to ensure impartiality.

• Complainants will receive acknowledgment of their complaint and will be informed of the investigation’s progress and final resolution within a reasonable timeframe.

• If the issue cannot be resolved internally, the complainant may be referred to COPE for further guidance.

This dual mechanism ensures that appeals of editorial decisions and formal complaints about editorial or ethical practices are addressed transparently, fairly, and in alignment with international standards of scholarly publishing.

Multiple Submissions
We maintain a firm policy against concurrent submissions and repeated publication of substantially identical material. Works under review at other outlets or significantly overlapping with previously published or submitted content are not accepted. Authors must verify that their manuscript is exclusively submitted to this journal and is not undergoing review elsewhere. Breaches may lead to immediate rejection, in line with our ethical guidelines. Authors are urged to observe this policy to uphold high publication standards and support the broad dissemination of novel, peer-reviewed research.

Section Policies

• Original Research: Open Submissions | Indexed | Peer Reviewed
• Review Articles: Open Submissions | Indexed | Peer Reviewed
• Studies and Articles: Open Submissions | Indexed | Peer Reviewed
• Case Studies: Open Submissions | Indexed | Peer Reviewed
• Monographic Studies: Open Submissions | Indexed | Peer Reviewed
• Book Reviews: Open Submissions | Indexed | Peer Reviewed

Resolving Inconsistencies
When an author lodges credible objections to a review, the Editorial team evaluates whether the review meets objective and academic criteria. Should there be doubts about the review’s impartiality or quality, the Editor-in-Chief will seek additional reviews. This also applies if reviewer opinions (accept or reject) are contradictory or otherwise irreconcilable.

Publishing Schedule
Smart Design Policies publishes one issue annually (December). Before the issue’s full release, accepted papers are made available online on the journal’s website.

 

Ethical Standards and Misconduct

Ethical Standards and Anti-Bias

We apply consistent and impartial editorial practices. Conflicts of interest must be declared by editors and reviewers. Decisions are determined solely by a manuscript’s academic merit and alignment with our scope, without discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, citizenship, or political ideology.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Potential conflicts of interest occur when external factors might compromise the objectivity of the research or evaluation. Clear disclosure helps readers evaluate the credibility of the content. Common forms include:

• Financial
• Affiliations
• Intellectual Property
• Personal
• Ideological
• Academic

Data Fabrication and Falsification

Any evidence of data manipulation or fabrication leads to immediate rejection. This includes all forms of plagiarism, submitting the same work to multiple outlets, duplicate publication, and manipulative referencing.

Policy of Screening for Plagiarism

All submissions undergo screening using reliable plagiarism-detection software. Manuscripts suspected of containing any form of plagiarism or self-plagiarism are immediately declined. Authors must ensure the originality of their work, properly citing and acknowledging all sources. The journal may notify the authors’ institution or other authorities if plagiarism is identified. By submitting, authors agree to these conditions, understanding that noncompliance can lead to sanctions.

Sex and Gender in Research

We encourage following the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) “Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER)” guidelines. Authors should distinguish clearly between “sex” (biological) and “gender” (socio-cultural) to avoid confusion in their findings.

Journal Policy on Ethical Oversight

Aligned with COPE recommendations, we require ethical approvals for research involving human or animal subjects, informed consent, and the safeguarding of vulnerable groups. Authors must obtain and provide proof of ethical clearance from their institutional review board when submitting.

Authorship and Contribution
We uphold strict standards for recognizing contributions. All individuals listed as authors must have made substantial, identifiable inputs to the research and manuscript drafting. Authorship may entail contributions in:

1. Study conception and design
2. Data collection
3. Data interpretation and analysis
4. Research execution
5. Writing and revising the manuscript

All authors must approve the final version and accept accountability for its content. Contributors with lesser roles—such as technical support, editorial assistance, or general supervision—should be acknowledged separately with their consent. Deliberate omission of primary contributors or inclusion of individuals who did not contribute is prohibited and can lead to rejection or retraction in line with COPE’s principles.

Allegations of Research Misconduct
We are committed to preserving the highest ethical standards in research and publication. Instances of misconduct include:

• Plagiarism: Presenting another individual’s work or ideas without proper acknowledgment.
• Citation Manipulation: Adding references purely to alter citation metrics.
• Data Falsification/Fabrication: Intentionally altering or inventing data.
• Redundant Publication: Publishing identical material in multiple sources without proper disclosure.
• Unauthorized Use of Data: Employing data without permission or appropriate credit.

Submissions undergo thorough checks, including plagiarism software and critical editorial scrutiny. We rely on our editorial board, peer reviewers, and the academic community to report concerns.

Zero Tolerance for Encouraging Misconduct

No one in the editorial process will promote or permit unethical research practices. If allegations of misconduct arise, whether for published articles or ongoing submissions, we proceed as follows:

1. Initial Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief reviews the legitimacy of the complaint.
2. Notification: The corresponding author is informed, with an opportunity to respond and provide evidence.
3. Investigation: An unbiased inquiry is conducted, following COPE protocols.
4. Resolution: Depending on the outcome:
• Correction: If mistakes are unintentional.
• Retraction: If misconduct is verified.
• Notification: Relevant parties, including co-authors and institutions, are alerted.
• Documentation: All actions are fully recorded.

We follow COPE’s Core Practices throughout the editorial and publication process, ensuring decisions are based on transparent, objective evidence.

 

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Statement

Smart Design Policies is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic publishing through a rigorous, transparent, and ethically grounded double-blind peer review system designed to ensure scholarly quality, credibility, and integrity. All submissions are initially screened by the Editor-in-Chief, and if deemed suitable, assigned to a Section Editor who selects at least two qualified external reviewers free of conflicts of interest. Reviewers provide constructive, evidence-based feedback within an eight-week timeframe, while authors are expected to respond with point-by-point revisions, resubmissions, and proof corrections as required. Decisions may range from acceptance to major revision, resubmission for fresh review, or rejection, with conflict resolution mechanisms in place through additional reviews or Editorial Board consultation. The process is supported by thorough copy-editing, layout preparation, and final proofreading before publication, ensuring British English consistency and compliance with journal standards. Reviewers are selected for their expertise and integrity, required to declare conflicts, respect confidentiality, and report ethical breaches, while authors retain the right to appeal decisions within 30 days. Post-publication, the journal follows COPE procedures for issuing corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern to protect the scholarly record. For more detailed information, please see the following link: https://smartdpj.com/sdp/prs

 

Standardized Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted to Smart Design Policies are subjected to a thorough double-blind peer review. We apply uniform criteria to evaluate each submission for originality, alignment with our focus on smart design policies, research methodology, clarity of expression, and overall contribution. Reviewers follow structured guidelines to ensure consistent and equitable evaluation of every manuscript.

Author and Reviewer Communication

We maintain clear, consistent, and courteous communication channels with authors, reviewers, and editorial board members. Standardized templates are used to provide unambiguous instructions, expectations, and progress updates throughout the submission and review phases. The feedback provided to authors is specific and constructive, aiming to improve their work. We prioritize timely responses and transparent dialogue, cultivating a collaborative environment for publishing.

Publication and Post-Publication Policies

Citation Policies

In line with COPE’s recommended best practices, we do not tolerate citation manipulation. Citation manipulation includes adding references solely to boost citation metrics without genuine scholarly relevance. Authors must ensure that all cited sources directly support the work. Legitimate self-citations for valid academic reasons are acceptable. Any attempt at manipulating citations will lead to immediate rejection and potential further actions. Smart Design Policies reserves the right to uphold its academic integrity by taking appropriate measures, guided by COPE’s recommendations.

Updating Published Papers

If a complaint or a request for revisions is submitted, the Editorial Office—in consultation with the Editorial Board and the Editor-in-Chief—conducts a thorough evaluation. They may also consult external experts or institutional representatives when necessary.

• Corrections: Issued for errors that impact scientific accuracy, ensuring readers are properly informed.
• Retractions: Implemented according to COPE’s guidelines if an article must be withdrawn.
• Expression of Concern: Released following COPE’s protocols if there is uncertainty about a publication’s reliability.
• Comments and Replies: Readers may submit concise letters addressing specific methods or results.
• Addendum: Offered when crucial information was inadvertently omitted from the published paper.

Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

We welcome post-publication discussions through letters to the editor or moderated platforms such as PubPeer. Any subsequent corrections follow COPE’s directives to uphold scholarly clarity and accuracy.

 

Access, Licensing, and Archiving

Open Access Policy

For more on our Open Access Policy, please visit: https://smartdpj.com/sdp/oapolicy

Repository Policy

For further information about our Repository Policy, please visit: https://smartdpj.com/sdp/repository

Self-Archiving Policy

Authors can archive the submitted, accepted, and all published versions of their articles to any repository of their choice, personal websites (including social networking sites such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu), and/or departmental websites at any time. Published sources must be acknowledged with citations.

Archiving Digital Version

In compliance with best practices in digital preservation, all published issues are archived in the PKP Preservation Network (PKP PN). The journal’s preservation status is also registered and can be verified through the Keepers Registry. https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/3062-1607 

 

Article Processing Charge

The Journal of Smart Design Policies offers all its services entirely free of charge for authors and third parties. There are no fees for manuscript submission or article publication, and no hidden costs at any stage of the process. The journal does not impose Article Submission Charges (ASCs), membership fees, or language editing fees. Authors also incur no charges for the inclusion of colour images or additional pages, ensuring a fully cost-free and accessible platform for scholarly contributions.

 

Intellectual Property and Copyright

Journal Policies on Intellectual Property

Smart Design Policies operates under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY) license. This ensures that any published materials can be shared and utilized by others, provided proper credit is granted. Adhering to COPE’s guidelines on intellectual property, we encourage readers to consult our Copyright, Licensing, and Repository Policy for more details.

Copyright

For specific information on our Copyright policy, please visit:   https://smartdpj.com/sdp/lic 

Licensing

For information regarding our Licensing policy, please visit:   https://smartdpj.com/sdp/lic  

Editorial Independence & Ownership

Smart Design Policies is owned and administered by Alanya University. Editorial decisions are made independently by the editorial team and are not influenced by the university or any external parties.

 

Administration and Transparency

Investigations

Concerns about ethical issues or research misconduct should be directed to the Research Integrity team. Confidentiality can be maintained using secure email services like ProtonMail. We may request data or images from authors, consult with editors, or contact relevant institutions to evaluate any allegations. All procedures conform to COPE’s guidelines. For additional information, see our Allegations of Misconduct section.

Complaints Policy

The Journal of Smart Design Policies treats all complaints with utmost seriousness and addresses them in line with COPE’s established guidelines. Each case is thoroughly investigated, and the complainant is informed of the final resolution. Complaints will be acknowledged within 7 working days, investigated promptly, and resolved as soon as possible, normally within 30 days. Complainants will be kept informed throughout the process. The journal maintains detailed records of complaints related to:

• Authorship disputes
• Plagiarism
• Duplicate publication
• Misappropriation of research findings
• Research errors or fraud
• Violations of ethical research standards
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest

If you wish to file a complaint, please email us at editor@smartdpj.com  with all relevant details. Your concerns will be handled promptly and transparently.

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party. We comply with applicable data protection and privacy laws, including GDPR, and ensure that personal data are used solely for the purposes of this journal.

Journal’s Revenue Sources

Smart Design Policies is fully funded and supported by Alanya University. The journal does not generate revenue from advertising, sponsorship, membership fees, or any other commercial sources.

Data Availability Statement

We advocate for open research and require a “Data Availability Statement” in every submission, informing readers how to access the data underlying the study. Authors may use one of the following templates or adapt them:

1. Availability of Data: Data openly available in a public repository with DOIs: “The data supporting this study are openly available in [repository] at [DOI link].”
2. Open Repository without DOIs: “Data supporting this study are openly available in [repository] at [URL].”
3. Public Domain Resources: “These data are available in [repository] at [URL/DOI]. They were derived from publicly accessible sources: [list resources and URLs].”
4. Within the Article: “Data are provided within the article and/or its supplementary materials.”
5. Upon Request: “Due to privacy/ethical constraints, the data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.”
6. No Public Availability: “Participants did not consent to public data sharing, so the data remain confidential.”

Data Sharing and Reproducibility

We align with FAIR Principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability) when sharing data. If authors cannot provide the raw dataset without a valid explanation, the submission may be declined. A Data Availability Statement is mandatory, even if data are not included.

General Repositories

If specialized repositories are unavailable, authors may use general repositories such as Dryad, Figshare, or Zenodo. Our practices follow COPE’s guidelines on “data sharing and reproducibility.”

ORCID Number

Authors are strongly encouraged to obtain an Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID) to enhance the discoverability and tracking of their work. Including this identifier with the submission is recommended, and if the article is published, the ORCID will appear alongside the author’s details.

Disclaimer

While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of published material, Smart Design Policiesmakes no explicit or implied guarantees of completeness or suitability. The opinions in published articles are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the Journal’s views. We disclaim any liability for losses, damages, or legal actions resulting from the content. Authors bear legal and ethical responsibility for their published views. All reported issues are addressed in accordance with COPE’s standards.

 

Duties

Duties of Editors

Editors follow COPE’s “Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.” Potential conflicts may arise from personal, financial, or non-financial ties, submissions from the same institution, personal relationships, political or religious beliefs, or articles by relatives or close associates. We commit to publishing corrections, clarifications, retractions, or apologies when required.

Duties of Authors

1. Originality: The submitted work must be entirely original and not previously published or under consideration elsewhere.
2. Exclusive Submission: Authors must confirm that the manuscript is not under review by another outlet.
3. Significant Contribution: Each listed author must have contributed substantially to the research.
4. Approval of Submission: All authors must approve the final version and agree to the submission.
5. Ethical Compliance: The study must comply with all relevant ethical guidelines.

Credit Author Statement (CRediT)

Using CRediT, authors clarify individual contributions:

• Conceptualization: Who conceived and designed the study?
• Data Curation: Who was responsible for data collection?
• Analysis: Who analyzed the data?
• Writing: Who drafted the manuscript?

Authors should confirm roles, ensure accuracy, and obtain mutual agreement. An example might be:
“Conceptualization: A.B., C.D. Data curation: E.F., G.H. Formal analysis: A.B., E.F. Funding acquisition: A.B. Investigation: C.D., G.H. Methodology: A.B., C.D. Writing—original draft: A.B., C.D. Writing—review & editing: A.B., C.D., E.F., G.H. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.”

The corresponding author maintains communication with co-authors and the editorial office. In cases of authorship disputes (e.g., addition/removal of authors, order of authorship), the Editorial Office follows COPE’s guidelines and may request written confirmation from all authors before changes are made.

 

Duties of Reviewers

Reviewers must adhere to COPE’s ethical standards, providing timely, objective reviews supported by clear arguments. Confidentiality is paramount, and reviewers should identify any conflicts of interest. They are encouraged to thoroughly evaluate the manuscript for potential ethical concerns.

 

Duties of the Publisher

The publisher ensures permanent availability of all content, respects editorial independence, and works with editors to correct, retract, or clarify published material in line with COPE guidelines.

 

This publication ethics and malpractice statement for Smart Design Policies has been adapted in accordance with COPE’s broad guidelines.