Guide for Reviewers

The Editorial Board of the Journal of ASUFEAS carefully follows the opinions and the suggestions of the reviewers about the article to evaluate the effectiveness and quality of the article evaluation processes.

In this context, at the end of the article evaluation process, the reviewers are expected to clearly state in the report how the article contributes to the field of science or why the article should not be accepted for publication if it is claimed that no specific contribution has been made.

The reviewer may suggest one of the following options as a result of the article evaluation:
A) “Substantial changes are required to the manuscript (Major Revision).”
B) “Small number of corrections required in the manuscript (Minor Revision).”
C) “The article is not suitable for publication (Rejection).”
D) “The article can be published as it is (Accepted).”

When one of the options A, B or C is suggested, the reasons must be clearly and sequentially stated by the reviewers in the report or in a separate file (in word format) created by the reviewers and uploaded to the Dergipark system.

The following points should be considered in the article evaluation process:

1. Compliance of the study with journal writing rules
2. The similarity and suitability of the Turkish and foreign language summaries of the study
3. The summary of the study includes the purpose, method and results of the study
4. Compliance of the language and expression of the study with scientific criteria
5. Compatibility of the title and content of the study
6. The adequacy of the design of the application part of the study
7. The adequacy of the level of linking the findings with the purpose in the study
8. Compatibility and adequacy of the bibliography of the study with the subject
9. Compliance and adequacy of the citations used in the study with scientific criteria
10. The level of originality of the work

Last Update Time: 8/14/23, 2:16:20 PM