Fast and Fair Blind Peer-Reviewed with Hybrid Access Scholar & Practical Journals

# # #

Reviewer’s report

Title:
Date of receipt: Date returned:
Reviewer’s declaration 

I'm sure I qualified, as an expert, to evaluate the quality of articles on this topic.

Specific aspects of the original that I must evaluate and those to be ignored, always maintaining respect for the authors.

I will return the manuscript once read and after issuing the report.        

I will issue the report within the four weeks        

I will declare any personal, academic, research, economic or financial conflict of interest related to the manuscript.

I will maintain the confidentiality of both the manuscript and the review.        

I understand that the reputation of the journal depends on the quality of my work

Methodology and discussion

Is it clear what the authors are trying to achieve?

Does the literature review take into consideration the most important works?

Does manuscript correspond to aims and scope of the journal?

Is the structure of the discussion appropriate?

Does discussion only repeat the results but does not interpret them?

Have any parts of the manuscript been published before?

The originality and novelty

Are the topic(s), subject or specific problem outlined and defined clearly?        

Are the results interesting?

Is the research important?

Are the results backed up with evidence?

The clarity, logical coherence and conciseness of presentation

The style is appropriate (clear, concise and following a logical sequence)        

Are the figures and tables all necessary, complete (e.g., titles), and clearly presented?

Is the title relevant to the paper content?

Are there any errors, flaws or mistakes in the manuscript?

Is the abstract sufficiently informative, especially when read in isolation?

Are the references adequate according to the Guidelines?

Do the conclusions interpret and correspond to the results obtained in the work?        

Is the length of the paper in keeping with its importance?     

Overall evaluation  and your decision (tick one)
Very well executed and presented paper:   accept without further amendments

Above average paper: accept with minor amendments

Below average paper: accept after substantial amendments

Very poor paper: should not be published

Reviewer’s Code