We suggest to use the review form, however a review can be made in any convenient form. Special attention should be paid to the relevance, scientific novelty, as well as the correctness and validity of the conclusions.
Reviewing the work, one should be guided by the following criteria for evaluating its quality:
– Does the title clearly describe the article?
– Does abstract reflect the content of the article correctly?
– Are the keywords correct?
– Is the research topical?
– Does the manuscript analyze recent works?
– What percentage of references at sources that were published last 10 years?
– Is scientific problem stated correctly?
– Whether the results of the research are of scientific interest as a whole?
– Is there scientific novelty in the research?
– Are the conclusions correct?
– Were known or author’s own methods used correctly in the research?
– Were there any mistakes in the used methods?
– Are the data obtained in the experiments correctly interpreted?
– Are the illustrative materials and the results of the experiment given in a proper form?
– Are there any grammatical errors in the article?
– Does something indicate research misconduct? If yes, please, give an explanation.
Based on the questions above, you should make a conclusion about the possibility of publication of the article. Specific commentaries can be made, if necessary. In a case of rejection, you should give a reasoned basis for it.
IN CONCLUSION you should note:
– Whether the article suits scientific type and standards of the journal?
– Whether the article suits the section of the journal it is submitted (section defined by the author)?
– Whether article can be published without scientific editing or it requires correction?
– Whether the article requires to be corrected by the author?
– Whether the article requires to pass additional reviewing (after correction)?
– Whether the article can be published at all?