Guide for reviewers of Review articles submitted for publication 

 
Copy of receive email

Manuscript ref. number (MS)
Date
Referee number Referee name
Referee email

Information for the Editors (Please respond to the following items)
1. Is the review within the scope of the Journal?
yes
 no
2. Priority
High
Moderate
Low  

3. Recommendation:
Acceptable without revision
 Acceptable after minor revision
 Acceptable after extensive revision
 Reject (lack of originality, poor experimental design,overall poor quality)

4. Other confidential information for the Editors  
Guide for reviewing the paper
1. Originality and importance of the contribution of the authors for the development of the field of study and
the general interest of the Journal in publishing the review. The review or a focused mini review should be 
synthetic and critical and not just a review of the literature.

2. Adequacy of the abstract (Are sufficient data, preferably numerical, given to allow the abstract to be
appreciated without the paper? 

3.  The number of publications by the author in the area and the significance of his contribution for the
advancement of knowledge in the review area.

                  

4. Relevance of References. (Maximum number for Review: 60).                    

     

5. Relevance of the Figures and Tables. (Indicate if the number of Figures and Tables can be reduced).                       

  

6. Suggestion for a more appropriate title.                

7. Suggestion for a more suitable running title.               

8. Suggestion for addition or changes in Key words.                

9. Suggestions for improving the Review.               

10. General Comments                

11. Specific Comments 

12. Quality of English

Acceptable
Needs Improvement
Not Acceptable