Author :

Affiliation :
Title :

Technical criteria

1. Scientific merit: notably scientific rigour, accuracy and correctness.

a. Excellent b. Good c. Acceptable d. Little
2. Clarity of expression; communication of ideas; readability and discussion of concepts.
a. Excellent b. Good c. Acceptable d. Little
3. Sufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing .
a. Excellent b. Good c. Acceptable d. Little

Quality criteria
4. Originality: is the work relevant and novel?
a. Excellent b. Good c. Acceptable d. Little
5. Motivation: does the problem considered have a sound motivation? All papers should
clearly demonstrate the scientific interest of the results.
a. Excellent b. Good c. Acceptable d. Little
6. Repetition: have significant parts of the manuscript already been published?
a. Excellent b. Good c. Acceptable d. Little
7. Length: is the content of the work of sufficient scientific interest to justify its length?
a. Excellent b. Good c. Acceptable d. Little

Presentation criteria
8. Title: is it adequate and appropriate for the content of the article?
a. Excellent b. Good c. Acceptable d. Little
9. Abstract: does it contain the essential information of the article? Is it complete? Is it
suitable for inclusion by itself in an abstracting service?
a. Excellent b. Good c. Acceptable d. Little
10. Diagrams, figures, tables and captions: Are they essential and clear?
a. Excellent b. Good c. Acceptable d. Little
11. Text and mathematics: are they brief but still clear? If you recommend shortening,
please suggest what should be omitted.
a. Excellent b. Good c. Acceptable d. Little
12. Conclusion: does the paper contain a carefully written conclusion, summarizing what
has been learned and why it is interesting and useful?
 a. Excellent b. Good c. Acceptable d. Little

Detail comments to the author:

Detail comments to editor proceeding:

Recommendation:
a) Accept without any revision
b) Accept with minor revision
c) Major revision
d) Rejected