Review format

Evaluation form for clinical case article or case study.

Dear reviewer: In support of your evaluation of the designated article, we request to use the following rubric that considers three areas of review: Content, Communication, and Critical Thinking. Please answer YES or NO in each field as you deem appropriate. In case the answer is NO, please detail the respective observations.

Evaluation Criterion: Content

Compliance (YES/NO)

Observations (Comment in case compliance is NO)

Article length: The article should not exceed 30,000 characters.

 

 

Title: The title of the article contains a maximum of twenty (20) words.

 

 

Abstract: Preferably semi-structured, maximum 150 words, identifying the basic content of the clinical case.

 

 

Key descriptors: There are between 3 and 5 descriptors. 

 

 

JEL classification: There are between 1 and 3 classification codes.

 

 

Introduction: This section points out theoretically supported background, identifies the purpose and justification of the research.

 

 

Case description: Exhaustive and detailed narrative presenting the patient or situation studied (assessment, diagnosis) and the methods or procedures used. It shows the results of examinations, interviews, observations, etc., as well as the context in time and space.

 

 

Discussion: Present the most relevant findings of the case (categories of analysis), comparisons with other studies (if any), limitations, contextualizing and relativizing transfer possibilities, theoretical consequences, new questions, etc.

 

 

References: References have been written with French indentation and according to the latest edition of the APA standard, and each reference is referenced in the text of the article at least once.

 

 

Tables and Figures: All tables and figures follow the numbering and formatting required in the guidelines for authors.

 

 

Originality and validity: The article is original, contributes to knowledge and its subject matter is of current interest.

 

 

 

Evaluation Criterion: Content

Compliance (YES/NO)

Observations (Comment in case compliance is NO)

Written composition: In the article, the sequence of all paragraphs is coherent and cohesive. Each paragraph has an argumentative conclusion with premises and evidence.

 

 

Spelling: The article has no spelling or punctuation errors.

 

 

 

Evaluation Criterion: Content

Compliance (YES/NO)

Observations (Comment in case compliance is NO)

Quality of information: The article evidences deep knowledge of the subject from a discussion with ample use of arguments, points of view and sources of information.

 

 

Quality and quantity of references: The article has relevant references and correspond to articles published in indexed journals, books, book chapters, papers, and/or official websites.

 

 

 

Comments to the editor (these comments will not be sent to the authors):

Comments for the authors (shortcomings and achievements of the article, recommendations for improvement, courses of action, etc.): 

Note: The completion of this evaluation form may be complemented with the submission of the article file containing corrections and comments on opportunities for improvement.

 

Scientific article evaluation form

Dear reviewer: In support of your evaluation of the designated article, we ask you to use the following rubric that considers three areas of review: Content, Communication, and Critical Thinking. Please answer YES or NO in each established field, as you deem convenient. In case the answer is NO, please detail the respective observations.

Evaluation Criterion: Content

Compliance (YES/NO)

Observations (Comment in case compliance is NO)

Article length: The article should not exceed 30,000 characters.

 

 

Title: The title of the article contains a maximum of twenty (20) words.

 

 

Abstract: Contains the purpose of the study, methodology, results and most relevant conclusions in no more than 150 words.

 

 

Key descriptors: There are between 5 and 8 descriptors.

 

 

JEL classification: There are between 1 and 3 classification codes.

 

 

Introduction: This section points out theoretically supported background, the purpose and justification of the research. It also presents a brief review of the main concepts of the study variables duly supported by theoretical references.

 

 

Methodology: This section details the type of research conducted, the description of the study population, the measurement instruments applied and the data collection period.

 

 

Results: This section outlines the results of the research and relates them to the literature review and the purpose of the study.

 

 

Discussion or Conclusions: This section shows the authors' contributions, in terms of the objective, the methodology employed, the contribution to theory and context, and the limitations and suggestions for future research.

 

 

References: References have been written with French indentation and according to the latest edition of the APA standard, and each reference is referenced in the text of the article at least once.

 

 

Tables and Figures: All tables and figures follow the numbering and formatting required in the guidelines for authors.

 

 

Originality and validity: The article is original, contributes to knowledge and its subject matter is of current interest.

 

 

 

Evaluation Criterion: Content

Compliance (YES/NO)

Observations (Comment in case compliance is NO)

Written composition: In the article, the sequence of all paragraphs is logical and effective. Each paragraph has an argumentative conclusion with premises and evidence.

 

 

Spelling: The article has no spelling mistakes and uses punctuation marks appropriately.

 

 

 

Evaluation Criterion: Content

Compliance (YES/NO)

Observations (Comment in case compliance is NO)

Quality of information: The article evidences deep knowledge of the subject from a discussion with ample use of arguments, points of view and sources of information.

 

 

Quality and quantity of references: The article has relevant references and correspond to articles published in indexed journals, books, book chapters, papers, and official web pages.

 

 

 

Comments to the editor (these comments will not be sent to the authors):

Comments for the authors (shortcomings and achievements of the article, recommendations for improvement, courses of action, etc.): 

Note: The completion of this evaluation form may be complemented by sending the article file, containing corrections and comments on opportunities for improvement.

 

Review Article Evaluation Form

Dear Reviewer: In support of your evaluation of the designated article, we request that you use the following rubric that considers three areas of review: Content, Communication, and Critical Thinking.  Please answer YES or NO in each field as you deem appropriate.  In case the answer is NO, please detail the respective observations.

Evaluation Criterion: Content

Compliance (YES/NO)

Observations (Comment in case compliance is NO)

Article length: The article should not exceed 30,000 characters.

 

 

Title: The title of the article contains a maximum of twenty (20) words.

 

 

Abstract: Contains Scope of the review, period of the publications considered, origin of the publications, types of documents reviewed, author's opinion on relevant findings and main conclusions in no more than 150 words.

 

 

Key descriptors: There are between 5 and 8 descriptors.

 

 

JEL classification: There are between 1 and 3 classification codes.

 

 

Introduction: This section points out theoretically supported background, the purpose and justification of the research.

 

 

Literature Review: This section presents information concerning theories, models, previous research and similar related to the topic of the article, duly supported by theoretical references.

 

 

Conclusion and discussion: This section presents the conclusions of the research and relates them to the literature review and the purpose of the study.

 

 

References: References have been written with French indentation and according to the latest edition of the APA standard, and each reference is referenced in the text of the article at least once.

 

 

Tables and Figures: All tables and figures follow the numbering and formatting required in the guidelines for authors.

 

 

Originality and validity: The article is original, contributes to knowledge and its subject matter is of current interest.

 

 

 

Evaluation Criterion: Content

Compliance (YES/NO)

Observations (Comment in case compliance is NO)

Written composition: In the article, the sequence of all paragraphs is coherent and cohesive. Each paragraph has an argumentative conclusion with premises and evidence.

 

 

Spelling: The article has no spelling or punctuation errors.

 

 

 

Evaluation Criterion: Content

Compliance (YES/NO)

Observations (Comment in case compliance is NO)

Quality of information: The article evidences deep knowledge of the subject from a discussion with ample use of arguments, points of view and sources of information.

 

 

Quality and quantity of references: The article has at least 50 references. The references correspond to articles published in indexed journals, books, book chapters, papers, and official web pages.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments to the editor (these comments will not be sent to the authors):

Comments for the authors (shortcomings and achievements of the article, recommendations for improvement, courses of action, etc.): 

Note: The completion of this evaluation form may be complemented by sending the article file, containing corrections and comments on opportunities for improvement.