VCSEwiki:Peer review
Review process
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!
- For the process of reviewing itself, see Peer Review in Wikipedia
Example of Review Form
Paper title:
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Reviewer´s assessment:
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 (see below) (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) ......................
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