VCSEwiki:Peer review: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:23, 26 February 2011

Review process - academic articles

For the process of reviewing itself, see Peer Review in Wikipedia

For quality criteria, you can enter the Review process of some academic journals:

Analysis of evaluation reports of scientific papers: what referees say
- See also List of academic journals - select one and find out the rules!
Example of the peer review form for case studies

Example of Review Form - research papers

Paper title:

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Reviewer´s assessment:

1. Basic criteria

1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme (High/Medium/Low)

1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis (High/Medium/Low)

1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low)

1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low)

2. Summary Comments for Author(s)

2.1. Contribution to theory or practice (High/Medium/Low) ......................

2.2. Originality of the paper (High/Medium/Low) ......................

2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors (High/Medium/Low) ......................

2.4. Accurate information (Yes/No) .........................

2.5. Current information (Yes/No) .......................

2.6. Methodology (Yes/No) ...........................

2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor) ....................

2.7.1. Paper is logically organised (Yes/No) ....................

2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented (Yes/No) ....................

2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes/No)..........

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

Resource

Modified form of the JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABILITY

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 *[http://www.cec-wys.org/prilohy/996055c0/What%20referees%20say.pdf Analysis of evaluation reports of scientific papers]: what referees say
 **See also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals List of academic journals] - select one and find out the rules!
-*Example of [[review form for case studies]]
+*Example of the [[peer review form for case studies]]