Reviewers evaluate the manuscripts according to the following criteria:
- is within the scientific domain of the journal;
- significance of the topic;
- thoroughness of the abstract;
- state and formulation of the problem;
- formulated aim/aims;
- approaches and methods used;
- presentation and analysis of the results;
- quality of the illustrative material;
- logically presented text and well justified conclusion;
- presence of new results and contribution;
- possibilities for practical application;
- citing and referencing according to the requirements set by the journal.
For their convenience reviewers are given a unified Form of article reviewing, which is accompanied by a text containing comments and recommendations to the author/authors.
Form of Article Reviewing
(mark with a “v” in the respective column)
Title:
|
Type pf publication |
|||
|
Scientific article |
|
||
|
Scientific review article |
|
||
|
Scientific report |
|
||
|
Another type (to be specified) |
|
||
|
Evaluation by criteria |
Good |
Satisfactory |
Poor |
|
is within the scientific domain of the journal |
|
|
|
|
Significance of the topic |
|
|
|
|
Thoroughness of the abstract |
|
|
|
|
State and formulation of the problem |
|
|
|
|
Formulated aim/aims |
|
|
|
|
Approaches and methods used |
|
|
|
|
Presentation and analysis of the results |
|
|
|
|
Quality of the illustrative material |
|
|
|
|
Logically presented text and well justified conclusion |
|
|
|
|
Presence of new results and contribution |
|
|
|
|
Possibilities for practical application |
|
|
|
|
Citing and referencing according to the requirements set by the journal. |
|
|
|
|
Recommendations |
|||
|
To be published: |
|
||
|
- Without changes |
|
||
|
- After corrections |
|
||
|
To be returned for rewriting and submitting again |
|
||
|
Not to be published because: |
|
||
|
- It does not meet the requirements |
|
||
|
- Is not within the scientific domain of the journal |
|
||
Reviewer: