Article evaluation protocol

DOWNLOAD IN PDF

 

 

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.

 

1. The judgments made: substantiation and explanation, if applicable.

 

2. Consistency between the evaluation of the manuscript and the publication recommendation.

 

3. Positive aspects of the work evaluated and indication on correction of deficiencies.

 

4. 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.

 

5. 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

 

6. 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
EMAIL