Talk:Integration and tolerance: Difference between revisions
(Created page with '== 1. Basic criteria == 1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme (High/Medium/Low) High 1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis (High/Medium/Low) Hig…') |
|||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
4.1. Publish as is | 4.1. Publish as is | ||
4.2. Acceptable with minor modifications | '''4.2. Acceptable with minor modifications''' | ||
4.3. Might be accepted after major modifications | 4.3. Might be accepted after major modifications | ||
Revision as of 11:20, 7 January 2010
1. Basic criteria
1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme (High/Medium/Low) High
1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis (High/Medium/Low) High
1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (High/Medium/Low) High
1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low) Medium
2. Summary Comments for Author(s)
2.1. Contribution to theory or practice (High/Medium/Low) High
2.2. Originality of the paper (High/Medium/Low) Medium
2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors (High/Medium/Low) High
2.4. Accurate information (Yes/No) Yes
2.5. Current information (Yes/No) Yes
2.6. Methodology (Yes/No)
2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor) Readable
2.7.1. Paper is logically organised (Yes/No) No
2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented (Yes/No) Yes
2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes/No) Yes
3. Written Comments for Author(s)
4. General Recommendation for articles (highlight one option):
4.1. Publish as is
4.2. Acceptable with minor modifications
4.3. Might be accepted after major modifications
4.4. Unacceptable (select following option):
4.4.1. Not appropriate for the content/theme of the Course
4.4.2. Technically deficient
4.4.3. Quality of presentation is poor