Article evaluation protocol
TITLE OF THE WORK:
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PREPARING EVALUATION REPORTS
NOTE: ALONG WITH THIS REPORT – NOT MANDATORY -, IT IS APPRECIATED THAT YOU INDICATE CORRECTIONS AND / OR OBSERVATIONS IN THE COPY SENT OF THE ARTICLE.
-
The judgments made: substantiation and explanation, if applicable.
-
Consistency between the evaluation of the manuscript and the publication recommendation.
-
Positive aspects of the work evaluated and indication on correction of deficiencies.
-
Reasons for non-admission of manuscripts:
-
little scientific interest or relevance
-
serious methodological errors that compromise the validity of its content
-
superficial, purely descriptive, or informative approach
-
inadequate interpretation and handling of information
-
weak bibliographic and documentary support
-
poor writing and need for partial or total rewriting.
-
-
Review with major fixes:
-
with correctable methodological errors without thorough reworking
-
rigor and debatable depth in secondary or collateral points
-
good study of the issues and the handling of the data, except in some points
-
sufficient bibliographic and documentary apparatus, although it can be improved
-
generally acceptable wording, albeit with errors and inaccuracies
-
-
Revision with minor corrections:
-
no major methodological errors
-
level of cieentífico and rigorous analysis, with nuanced aspects
-
lack of bibliographic and documentary deficiencies that are not very relevant
-
proper wording with only a few corrections
-
Rules for publication
RATE EACH SECTION FROM 1 (very bad) TO 5 (very good)
BAREMACIÓN: |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
1.Title: Does the title correspond to the content of the work? |
|
|
|
|
|
2.Summary: Is the main line of work well summarized? |
|
|
|
|
|
3. Introduction: Is it clearly indicated? |
|
|
|
|
|
4. Work Development: Is the presentation clear, systematic and easy to follow? |
|
|
|
|
|
5.Conclusions: Are the conclusions clear and properly related to the content of the work? |
|
|
|
|
|
6.Bibliography: Is it adequate, current and sufficient? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
1 Relevance |
|
|
|
|
|
2 Originality |
|
|
|
|
|
3 Sequencing/Logical organization |
|
|
|
|
|
4 Quality in Methodology |
|
|
|
|
|
5 Quality in Experimentation/Application |
|
|
|
|
|
6 Scientific contextualization, bibliography, webography |
|
|
|
|
|
Form: Grammar, Style, Vocabulary |
|
|
|
|
|
SUGGESTED DECISION:
|
Approved
|
1-Overall assessment of the quality of the work: Maximum ( ) Good ( ) Medium ( ) Low (x ) 2-Assessment of originality and relevance (irrelevant) Maximum ( ) Good ( ) Medium ( ) Low ( x ) |
|
Accepted minor reforms |
----------- |
|
Accepted with major reforms |
----------- |
|
Rejected |
Reasons: Specify:. |
REJECTED:
Indicate with X the reasons why the work has been rejected: |
|
Lacks originality |
|
Lack of interest |
|
There are errors of foundation |
|
The exhibition is confusing and incomplete |
|
Needs major modifications Other (specify) |
|
EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION
NUMBER |
|
FILIATION / INSTITUTION |
|
ACCEPTANCE OF SECOND REVISION |
|
|
|