Evaluation criteria
Checklist of criteria for the evaluation of contributions and preparation of the final report
Timeliness, interest and relevance of the contribution
1. Originality and relevance of the topic
1.1. Opportunity and novelty of the proposal.
1.2. Thematic suitability and scientific soundness.
1.3. Need, utility, academic or social function.
2. Relevance
2.1. Of the object of study.
2.2. The contribution contributes to the advancement of knowledge.
2.3. It is of interest to the scientific community and research staff and readers.
3. Methodological rigor
3.1. Methodology, materials and methods used.
3.2. Sources used and their relevance.
4. Conclusions
4.1. Data, discussion and results of the contribution presented concisely and clearly.
4.2. Relationship with the research objectives.
4.3. Potentiality and proposal of new perspectives and for the opening of new lines of research.
Criteria for formal assessment of originals and adaptation to publication standards.
5. Formal presentation of the contents and their quality according to the structure of scientific articles
5.1. The title exposes and briefly introduces the object of the article.
5.2. Abstract and keywords as established in the rules for authors and are descriptive that synthesize the object of study, objectives and results.
5.3. Structure of the article following the approach of the content and development of the arguments (organization of the contents by sections: Introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, references and annexes if applicable).
5.4. Theoretical framework, research background and state of the art.
5.5. Adequate bibliography used according to APA standards and if it follows the established standards.
5.6. Writing following academic communication standards and appropriate language.
5.7. Presentation of information with tables, graphs, etc.
5.8. Meets maximum extension criteria.
5.9. Reference, where appropriate, to the sources of funding for the research and the people or entities that have collaborated.
Structure of the report and comments of the evaluator - reviewer
1. Summary characterizing the investigation (between two and four paragraphs)
- Characteristics of the research (object of study, design of the methodology and results)
- Significance, most significant contributions and most relevant findings (originality, timeliness, context with respect to other research)
2. Positive aspects indicating the overall strengths of the contribution and the impact in your field.
- Updated review, international perspective, justification of the object of study and research objectives, coherence, sources consulted, etc.
3. Overall rating
In your opinion the work should be:
- Accepted without objections: _____
- Accepted if entered: ______
3.1. Specific or minor modifications, if they refer to writing, structure, bibliography, etc. that do not require a new round of evaluation but do require a new version of the article.
3.2. Major modifications, if they imply important changes in the article and submit it to a new round of evaluation.
- Rejected: yes / no
4. Recommendations and proposals for improvement
5. Other observations of interest
Note: When preparing the evaluation report, as a reviewer, take into account the COPE recommendations, 2018 (p. 8) and indicate the quality and rigor of the work as well as, in case of lack of analysis, the recommendations of aspects to be considered as improvement, without extending them beyond the purpose of the text. Take into account the language and style of the contribution and make suggestions if you consider it additional work to incorporate, applying responsibility and avoiding requesting unnecessary content. Recovered from: Version 2: COPE Council. COPE Guidelines: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. September 2017. Version 1: Published in March 2013 https://bit.ly/2qkVxMj
