Article evaluation format

BASIC INFORMATION
Article title
  
Evaluator's name
  
Article reception date by the reviewer
  
Evaluation submission date by the evaluator
  

 

EVALUATION OF FORMAL ASPECTS (EDITORIAL TEAM)
Yes
No
Length of the article in word format A4 25 pages    
Presents Arial 12pt font, 1.5 line spacing, single column, with a margin of 2.5 cm on its sides    
It presents the title and does not exceed 20 words    
The title is clear and specific (avoid excess words)    
The abstract does not exceed 200 words in length    
The abstract shows the objective, methods, results and conclusion    
It presents key words    
The structure is according to editorial standards 5.6. Article structure    
Comments for the author on formal aspects that may be considered pertinent:

 

 

 

SUBSTANTIAL ASPECTS EVALUATION (EXTERNAL REVIEWER)
General criteria
Score granted
Maximum score
Article originality and relevance of the topic  
10
Coherence between title and content; and between the different parts of the article  
5
Argumentative quality, coherence, order and clarity of the manuscript  
5
Relevant academic contribution  
5
SUBTOTAL   
25
Introduction    
It presents a general overview of the topic to be covered  
4
It presents the topic's actual status (background and theories) in a sufficient manner  
4
It presents justification and novel character  
3
It clearly presents the objective, the problem and the hypothesis  
4
SUBTOTAL   
15
Methods    
It presents the details of the material and methods used in the research, according to the nature of the article  
5
It has methodological rigor: a) descriptive analysis (indicates the way the data were presented in tables or figures), b) inferential analysis, through statistical tests (description of the statistical tests that allowed the verification of the results)  
10
SUBTOTAL   
15
Results    
They are understandable and coherent, aligned with the research objective(s)  
5
They are supported by tables and figures  
5
They are consistent with the methods used and duly interpreted  
5
They present their respective evaluation (support or contradict the hypothesis).  
5
SUBTOTAL   
20
Discution    
It describes the study's contribution to the current knowledge  
4
It presents coherently the comparison of the results with the antecedents reviewed and cited in the introduction  
4
It clearly expresses the conclusion  
4
It presents the future research agenda  
3
SUBTOTAL   
15
References    
The references are current and relevant  
5
References comply with APA seventh edition standards and are cited in the text  
5
SUBTOTAL   
10
TOTAL
  
100

 

Observations that may be considered pertinent (this section will be communicated to the author anonymously):
Major observations

 

 
Minor observations

 

 
Comments for the author (this section will be communicated to the author anonymously):

 

 
Comments for the journal editor (if you have any comments on the article that you do not want the author to read):

 

 

 

General appreciation
When it does not reach the minimum level of 50 points in a first review and 65 points in a second review, the article is rejected. A succinct writing is requested explaining the main reasons that, in the evaluator's opinion, justify the rejection of the paper. If the article is approved, recommendations to improve the article are requested.

 

EVALUATION RESULT (YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR PUBLICATION IS):
Publishable without modifications
Publishable taking into account minor marks  
Publishable, if the major marks are resolved  
Publishable, if minor and major marks are resolved  
Publishable, if minor and major marks are resolved  
Non-publishable, does not qualify for publication