The referee is expected to explicitly state, as a result of the article review, how the article contributes to the field of discipline in question, and why the article should not be accepted for publication if it can not contribute.
1. The article may be published as it is.
2. Can be published after the corrections are made, no need to see them again.
3. I want to review it again after it has been corrected.
4. Publication is not appropriate, can not be published.
NOTE: We write in the ANNEX DESCRIPTION of the particulars and suggestions that you would like to additionally rectify under the above evaluation criteria.
If one of the 2, 3 or 4 options is proposed, the reasons should be clearly stated.
The following considerations should be taken into consideration during the article evaluation process:
1. General layout
2. Narrative clarity, clarity
3. Objective, presentation of hypothesis and research questions
4. Design of the practical part
5. Relation of the subject to the relevant literature
6. Ability to data of analyze
7. The level of connection of the findings to the purpose
8. Associating comments with findings
9. Compliance with the rules of the language being spoken and the terminology of the area concerned
10. Innovation / contribution level