Please review the attached article. Review should be based on your expert analysis, good information on the subject of the article and the relevant literature. Please review to point out any deficiencies in the text and, if necessary, provide instruction on the amendments or modifications to the text. General data on paper
Article ID:
Article Title:
[1] Articles's content rating
Write numbers 1 to 5 to evaluate each of these evaluation criteria of the articles content where 5 means complete suitability for publication while 1 absolute grounds for refusal of the article.
| Article content assessment criteria | Evaluation | |
| 1 | The paper is written under “ Instructions for Authors“ | |
| 2 | Paper title reflects the content and purpose of the research. | |
| 3 | Abstract includes information important for understanding the content of the paper. | |
| 4 | The introduction clearly defines the purpose and objective of the work/research. | |
| 5 | Worked out a review of previous research in the treated area. | |
| 6 | The methodology is clearly defined. | |
| 7 | Showing results support the applied methodology and conclusions. | |
| 8 | The conclusion is based and contributes to the discharge of treated problems. | |
| 9 | Article is a contribution by the theory / practice. |
[2] Articles's organization rating
Write numbers 1 to 5 to evaluate each of these evaluation criteria of the articles content where 5 means complete suitability for publication while 1 absolute grounds for refusal of the article.
| Article organization assessment criteria | Evaluation | |
| 1 | The article is well organized and conforms to the “Instructions for authors”. | |
| 2 | The extent of the article is appropriate (up to 16 A4 pages). | |
| 3 | Figures, tables and pictures are corresponding. | |
| 4 | Terminology and measurement units are aligned with the metrology rules. | |
| 5 | The references reflect the topicality of the article. | |
| 6 | References are cited as directed by (Harvard system). | |
| 7 | The article is written in standard language, relevant and interesting. |
Total score =
Score:
<26: Reject
>= 26: Conditionally accept with the necessary changes as recommended by reviewer
>= 39: Conditionally accept with minor revisions (editor will check)
>=52: Publish as is
[3] Reviewer's recommendation
Mark with "√" one of the options.
The article should:
| Points | Mark with "√" | |
| 1 | Publish as is | |
| 2 | Conditionally accept with minor revisions (editor will check) | |
| 3 | Conditionally accept with the necessary changes as recommended by reviewer | |
| 4 | The article should be thoroughly changed | |
| 5 | Reject |
[4] General remarks and recommendations of reviewer
[5] Data of reviewer
Name, designation and address of reviewer:
Signature:
Date: