|
Evaluation criteria for peer review
Title________________________________
1. Content
|
|
Very Low |
Low |
Moderate |
High |
Very High |
Exceptional |
|
Importance of subject |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originality of approach |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soundness of
scholarship and/or methodology |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Degree of interest to
our readership |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contribution to knowledge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clarity of organization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strength of argument |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Writing style (easy to
follow) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Technical details
|
|
Yes |
No |
N.A.
|
|
Are correct units, methods and statistics used? |
|
|
|
|
Are the references incomplete or out of date? |
|
|
|
|
Can the paper be reduced in length (where)? |
|
|
|
|
Does the paper require expansion (where)? |
|
|
|
|
Are more subheadings
required? |
|
|
|
|
Are cited tables or figures missing? |
|
|
|
|
Is a summary or keywords required? |
|
|
|
|
Is ethical clearance shown and has ethical process been followed? |
|
|
|
3. Notes to the
author
Please use as much space as required here to provide your comments to
the author.
|
