Evaluation Form

REBECIN adopts a form in order to help the evaluators in the analysis and evaluation of the text submitted to REBECIN. In this sense, the questions that make up the form are accompanied by small comment boxes, where you can insert the analysis of each element that makes up the article, basing your decision.

Basically, the following questions are directly related to the following aspects that should be analyzed

Adequacy of the work to the proposed theme;
Explanation of the work's objective and coherence of its development in the text;
Conformity with the proposed theory, demonstrating up-to-date knowledge of the relevant bibliography;
Originality of the reflection and contribution to the field of knowledge;
Clarity, correctness and adequacy of language to a scientific paper;
Adequacy of the text to the standards of the journal.

At the end, it is up to the evaluator to choose among the following options to issue his final opinion:

Accept the publication of the article, without changes 
Accept the publication of the article with the requested revisions 
Submit the article to a new round, aiming at the re-evaluation of the revisions made 
Reject the publication of the article 

QUESTIONS ON THE FORM:

1) Are the topic and the scientific contribution to current knowledge in the subject area relevant?

 Yes

 No

 Partially

Comments:

2) Are the objectives clear and well defined?

 Yes

 No

 In part

Comments:

3) Does the literature review reflect the state of the art of knowledge in the field?

 Yes

 No

 Partially

Comments:

4) Is the scientific contribution to current knowledge in the subject area relevant?

 Yes

 No

 Partially

Comments:

5) Is the research method clearly defined and consistent with the objectives of the work and does the analysis of data and results rely on correct interpretation of the data and is it articulated with the theoretical basis?

 Yes

 No

 In part

Comments:

6) Are the conclusions grounded in the research data, clear and objective?

 Yes

 No

 In part

Comments:

7) Was the text prepared based on pertinent and up-to-date references and does it present correct spelling, grammar, clarity, objectivity, formal structure required in the template?

 Yes

 No

 Not at all

Comments:

8) Final opinion

 Accept the publication of the article, with no changes

 To accept the publication of the article with the requested revisions

 Submit the article to a new round, aiming at the re-evaluation of the revisions made

 Reject the article's publication

9) Being in compliance with Open Science, we asked the reviewers if they agree with the publication of the manuscript's approval evaluation opinions, according to the following options:

Yes, I agree to open the opinion with my identification.
Yes, I agree to open the review without my identification.
I do not agree to open the review.