Peer-Reviewed Open-Access Journal Evaluation Form - PDF Templates

February 11, 2021

REVIEWER'S EVALUATION FORM

REVIEWER'S DETAILS

Full Name

Mrs Modesty Etiam vel augue. Vestibulum rutrum rutrum neque. Aenean auctor gravida sem. Praesent id massa id nisl venenatis lacinia. McSporon

Institution/Organization

Etiam vel augue.

Address of Institution

9743 Pine View Pass, 39065 Dawn Way

Corpus Christi, Texas, 78465

United States

Phone Number

+88 (56) 170-4446

E-mail

kjetilk@example.com

EVALUATION

Paper ID

Etiam vel augue.

Manuscript Title

Phasellus id sapien in sapien iaculis congue. Vivamus metus arcu, adipiscing molestie, hendrerit at, vulputate vitae, nisl. Aenean lectus.

Date of Review

February 5, 1999

OVERALL

How do you estimate the impact of this paper?

Option 2

Do authors present any new experimental data not yet published in the literature?

Option 2

Does the paper help to expand or further research in this subject area?

Option 2

Is the submission in Standard English to aid the understanding of the reader?

Option 2

Is the methodology presented in the manuscript and any analysis provided both accurate and properly conducted?

Option 2

Mention the problem with the methodology as mentioned above

Phasellus id sapien in sapien iaculis congue. Vivamus metus arcu, adipiscing molestie, hendrerit at, vulputate vitae, nisl. Aenean lectus.

BODY

Is the paper complete? Is there an abstract/summary and a concluding section?

Option 2

Why do you think that the paper is incomplete?

Phasellus id sapien in sapien iaculis congue. Vivamus metus arcu, adipiscing molestie, hendrerit at, vulputate vitae, nisl. Aenean lectus.

Are all relevant accompanying data, citations, or references given by the author?

Option 2

Please mention specifically

Phasellus id sapien in sapien iaculis congue. Vivamus metus arcu, adipiscing molestie, hendrerit at, vulputate vitae, nisl. Aenean lectus.

Do you feel the subject of the paper is sufficiently interesting to justify its length?

Option 2

Please mention the reason for choosing 'No' above

Phasellus id sapien in sapien iaculis congue. Vivamus metus arcu, adipiscing molestie, hendrerit at, vulputate vitae, nisl. Aenean lectus.

Does this paper require addition of any kind?

Option 2

What kind of addition do you recommend?

Phasellus id sapien in sapien iaculis congue. Vivamus metus arcu, adipiscing molestie, hendrerit at, vulputate vitae, nisl. Aenean lectus.

Does this paper require omission of any kind?

Option 2

What kind of omission do you recommend?

Phasellus id sapien in sapien iaculis congue. Vivamus metus arcu, adipiscing molestie, hendrerit at, vulputate vitae, nisl. Aenean lectus.

Is there any part of the paper that must be more clearly/precisely defined?

Option 2

Which part(s) is/are needed to be defined more clearly? Please elaborate.

Phasellus id sapien in sapien iaculis congue. Vivamus metus arcu, adipiscing molestie, hendrerit at, vulputate vitae, nisl. Aenean lectus.

TABLES AND FIGURES

Is there any figure and table that is not well described in the context of the paper?

Option 2

Please mention specifically

Phasellus id sapien in sapien iaculis congue. Vivamus metus arcu, adipiscing molestie, hendrerit at, vulputate vitae, nisl. Aenean lectus.

REFERENCES

Are there any references that should be added?

Option 2

Please mention specifically

Phasellus id sapien in sapien iaculis congue. Vivamus metus arcu, adipiscing molestie, hendrerit at, vulputate vitae, nisl. Aenean lectus.

Are there any references that should be removed?

Option 2

Please mention specifically

Phasellus id sapien in sapien iaculis congue. Vivamus metus arcu, adipiscing molestie, hendrerit at, vulputate vitae, nisl. Aenean lectus.

RECOMMENDATION

Accept – if the paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
Minor revision – if the paper will be ready for publication after light revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend the author makes.
Major revision – if the paper would benefit from substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, widening of the literature review, or rewriting sections of the text.

Reject – if the paper is not suitable for publication in this conference or if the revisions that would need to be undertaken are too fundamental for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.