The Editorial Board of the Journal of Cappadocia Academic Review attaches great importance to the referee's opinions about the article and his/her suggestions to the author(s) for the publication of the article.

As a result of the article evaluation, the referee is expected to clearly state how the article contributes to the relevant disciplinary field and why the article should not be accepted for publication if he/she cannot see a contribution.

The referee may recommend one of the following options as a result of the article evaluation:

A) ‘Acceptable for publication’

B) "May be published with minor changes: May be published after corrections without refereeing"

C) "May be published with major changes: After corrections, it can be published after the referee sees it"

D) ‘Unpublishable’

When one of the options B, C or D is suggested, the reasons should be clearly stated.

The following points should be taken into consideration in the manuscript evaluation process:

1. General order

2. Clarity and intelligibility in expression

3. Presentation of purpose, hypothesis and research questions

4. Design of the practical part

5. Associating the subject with the relevant literature

6. Adequacy of data analysis

7. The level of linking the findings with the purpose

8. Relating interpretations to findings

9. Compliance with the rules of the language in which it is written and the relevant field terminology

10. Level of innovation/contribution

11. Plagiarism status / level of originality