Talk:Media and culture in a globalized world: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
(Created page with 'Dear Corinna, It is a pleasure to read your article. It is interesting and also your style of writing makes big sense and because you are really able to express your thoughts ve…')
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
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)
Dear Corinna,
Dear Corinna,


Line 23: Line 57:
Regards
Regards
Julia
Julia
4. General Recommendation for articles (highlight one option):
4.1. '''Publish as is''' with very very minor modifications
4.2. Acceptable with minor modifications which you can read above
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
71

edits

Navigation menu