Dear referee:


We would appreciate if you do this manuscript evaluation in a maximum of four weeks. If for any reason you could not meet that deadline, we would appreciate if you suggest us another evaluator.


Please enter your comments in relation to the questions presented by the guiding questions in the corresponding boxes. If you consider it necessary, you can include an additional report at the end of this form.


1. Interest: (Is the paper or document accessible and interesting for a Latin American audience and, in general, international?)


2. Main thesis sustained: (What is the main argument being discussed? Is this presentation consistent throughout the paper?)


3. Location in the field: (Is the paper or document clearly located in a specific, interesting and current academic? Does it contribute significantly to enrich that field? Does it reflect an adequate knowledge and use, not necessarily exhaustive, of the previous work in that field?)


4. Abstract: (Does the paper have an abstract in Spanish, English and Portuguese of maximum 130 words? If the paper is a result of a completed research, the abstract mentions the problem, the participants (and their characteristics), the methodology used, as well as the main results and conclusions of the research? If it is a paper that is not the result of a finalized or theoretical investigation, does it express in a synthetic, clear and precise manner what has been developed in the paper, especially the methodological process for its completion?)


5. Keywords: (Does it present 3 to 10 keywords taken from an international Thesaurus? Are the keywords appropriate? Is there any other keyword required? Are the keywords in three languages (Spanish, English and Portuguese)?)


6. Title: (Does the title synthesize the paper core? Does the title extension conform to the 12 words recommended? Is the title translated in three languages: Spanish, English and Portuguese?)


7. Introduction: (Is it adequate? Is it interesting and attracts the reader to read the entire paper? Does it include the contextualization of the problem, its conceptual referents, its state of the art minimally updated to the last three years, as well as the objective and question?)


8. Argumentative or expository coherence: (Do the arguments support the thesis? Are the arguments organized logically and progressively, and properly connected? Are the arguments explicit and relevant? Are quotes functional? Is the argumentation organized hierarchically? Is the paper precise, concrete and uses economy of language?)


9. Precision and conceptual clarity: (Are the concepts appropriate to the arguments? When defined, is this definition accurate?)


10. Textual cohesion: (Does the text have grammatical adequacy, syntactic and conceptual cohesion? The organization is coherent? Do you recommend copyediting?)


11. Method: (Does the text present the method in a clear and detailed manner? Are the following topics explicit in this section: epistemological foundation; description of the sample; design; methodology; techniques and instruments with their testing and validation; informed ethical consent; and data analysis techniques?)


12. Results: (Does the presentation of the research results correspond to what can be expected from the instruments described in the section of the method without omissions or additions? Are they presented in an organized, clear and relevant manner according to the research problem, the question and the objectives?)


13. Discussion or conclusions: (Does the discussion or conclusions emerge rigorously from the results, without adding new elements that do not have a clear support in them? Is the discussion or conclusions oriented towards the answer of the research question and its objectives? Are there similarities and differences with the research from other authors? Is the argumentation in this section original and suggestive? Are the study limitations raised? Are the future lines of research and recommendations raised? Has the importance and practical implications of the results found been deepened?)


14. Relevance of the references: (Are they relevant, adequate and current -within the last four years, including the current one-? Are they all necessary?)


15. Recommendations: (Please present the general suggestions. If you wish, you can make other specific annotations directly in the paper file using the tool for inserting comments in WordTM.)


16. Final concept: please mark your decision with an X in only one of the following options:


_  The text can be published as it is (or only with minimal editorial corrections). 

_ The text can be published with minor modifications without the need of a new evaluation.

_ The text can be published but with substantial modifications and a new evaluation. 

_   The text cannot be published. 


Follow Us