Journal History

DEPOSITORY: Architectural Design Journal is a periodical publication (two issues yearly) containing architectural design works, including academic designs, competition results, and actual project designs. First published in February 2025. Although this Journal was only published for the first time, the editorial team is confident it will become an Architectural Design Journal with a promising future reputation. Achieving SINTA accreditation as a National journal is a commitment that will be achieved through rational stages. For this reason, the Editorial Team invites all parties involved in the field of architectural design (young architects, professional architects, academics, and students of the Architect Professional Program) to be able to use this Journal to express and publish their works.

Author Fees

This Journal charges the following author fees.

• Article Submission: 0.00 (IDR)
  Authors must pay an Article Submission Fee as part of the submission process to contribute to review costs.
• Fast-Track Review: 0.00 (IDR)
  With the payment of this fee, the review, editorial decision, and author notification on this manuscript are guaranteed to take place within 4 weeks.
• Article Publication: 0.00 (IDR)
  If this paper is accepted for publication, you will be asked to pay an Article Publication Fee to cover publication costs.

You can waive each fee if you do not have the funds to pay such fees. We do not want fees to prevent the publication of worthy work.

Screening for Plagiarism

In this publication, the Jurnal Nomosleca strongly opposes plagiarism because of its abilities. The Jurnal Nomosleca is committed to blocking plagiarism, including self-plagiarism.

The author must ensure that the author has written the original work entirely if the author has used the work and/or words of others who have been quoted correctly, and if indications of plagiarism (above 25%) in the text, then the DEPOSITORY; Architectural Design Journal automatically has the right to reject the manuscript. The DEPOSITORY: Architectural Design Journal strongly recommends, too, an essential part of the manuscript before it is published. The author also appreciates writing in the DEPOSITORY Architectural Design Journal of publications, duplicates, or excessive fraud.

Before the author submits the manuscript to the DEPOSITORY, Architectural Design Journal, at least to examine the use of plagiarism. When submitting articles published for authenticity checks, the DEPOSITORY Architectural Design Journal recommends using the Turnitin Scanner from http://turnitin.com/. Before using Turnitin Plagiarism for the first time, we strongly recommend that the writer read the instructions for using this plagiarism detector. The plagiarism detection system for the DEPOSITORY Architectural Design Journal uses and is affiliated with Turnitin.

* Please note that the DEPOSITORY Architectural Design Journal is affiliated with Turnitin. *

The article has not been published in other media and does not contain plagiarism. Preferably, the author must use reference management software, such as Mendeley—bibliography and reference system for the DEPOSITORY; Architectural Design Journal using Mendeley and Turnitin.

Review Guideline and Process

Peer Review Process

The research article submitted to this online Journal will be peer-reviewed by at least 2 (two) reviewers. The accepted research articles will be available online following the Journal peer-reviewing process. The languages used in this Journal are English and Indonesian.

Review Guidelines

General

1. Give a mark on the wrong part or part that needs to be changed
2. Give a mark on the right side of the wrong line or line that needs to be changed

Detail

1. Title: Effectiveness, Specification, and clarity
2. Abstract: Complete and describe the essence  of the article
3. Keywords: Describing the essential concept of the article
4. Introduction: Up-to-date, originality, relevance of the Topic, compatibility of the critical reason for the research object
5. Research Method: Has to emphasize procedure and data analysis for empirical study
6. Result: Analysis accurateness
7. Findings: Up-to-date findings, relevance to the interrelated researchers, and the scientific contribution effect of finding /idea to the development of science
8. Conclusion: Logical, valid, brief, and clear
9. Suggestion: For practical action, development of new theory, and next/advanced research
10. Picture/Table: Center located, Not cut, Good quality to view, Picture/table title, Referred with a capital letter
11. Bibliography: The degree of up-to-date and the reference to primary book sources. Rules: minimum of 80% of the journals or the interrelated scientific researchers above 2019 (year); the number of book sources is a minimum of 10; minimum of 80% in the text/material of art.

Complete the Review Process of the Manuscript

1. Writing: Is the manuscript easy to follow, that is, has a logical progression and evident organization?
2. Is the manuscript concise and understandable? Any parts that should be reduced,
3. Eliminated/expanded/added?
4. Note if there are significant problems with mechanics: grammar, punctuation, and spelling. (If just a few places are worded well or correctly, make a note to tell the author the specific areas. If there are consistent problems throughout, only select an example or two. Don't try and edit the whole thing).
5. Abbreviations: Used judiciously and composed so the reader won't have trouble remembering what an abbreviation represents.
6. Follows style, format, and other rules of the Journal.
7. Citations are provided when providing evidence-based information from outside sources.

Categories Decision

• Publish: No Need Revision
• Minor     : Revision can be done by the Editor-In-Chief or those who help
• Major     : Revision can only be done by the author
• Rejected: Unproperly scientific or too many

Revision Guidelines

The paper that has received the review results is expected to be immediately revised to adjust the suggestions and questions. The author is given no later than 15 days to revise his paper, which is counted since the submission of the review results. If, at that time, the author does not upload the revised paper, then the paper will not be refused to be published (reject). Renewal time extensions can be obtained following strong demand and reason. The revised paper is further uploaded through DEPOSITORY; Architectural Design Journal website and also sent via email to [email protected] Following the provisions of the revised paper in DEPOSITORY; Architectural Design Journal:

1. When a reviewer comments on a paper (in the comment box), the writer is asked to reply to that comment box directly. The answer from the author can be information that has been revised or reason/argumentation if the author is not willing to revise for some reason (please can be submitted in the comments field, which is already available briefly and with details).

2. Revised on paper or in additional material/sentence, please block the yellow highlighter.

3. After the revision is complete, the revised paper file is named after the revised paper and uploaded to the journal website of DEPOSITORY: Architectural Design Journal. The editor will receive only one post-revision paper. Revisions to comments from the second reviewer and additional sentences were also made on the post-revision paper marked with a green highlighter.

4. Attached is a sample of the revision process paper in DEPOSITORY, Architectural Design Journal, to facilitate the author's revision process.

Ethics Statement

Our ethical statements are based on CCOPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Publication decisions
The editor is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the Journal should be published.
The editor may be guided by the policies of the Journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers to make this decision.

Fair play
An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the author's express written consent.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communications with the author, may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper they know personally.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts with conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication
An author should not generally publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one Journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals concurrently constitutes unacceptable publishing behavior.

Acknowledgment of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, the author must promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Publication Frequency

DEPOSITORY: The Architectural Design Journal is published twice yearly on February 15th and August 15th.

Archiving

DEPOSITORY: Architectural Design Journal has been indexing:

DEPOSITORY: Architectural Design Journal has been tools:

This Journal uses Open Journal Systems 2.4.8.5, an open-source journal management and publishing software developed, supported, and freely distributed by the Public Knowledge Project under the GNU General Public License.