Peer assessment tools
Ethical considerations
Comments on the methodology: 6. Results
Criterion
Poor (1)
Average (2)
Good (3)
Excellent (4)
Score
Clear presentation of the findings
Adequate use of tables and figures
Appropriate analysis of the data
Excellent (4)
Score
Adequate interpretation of the results
Suggestions for future research
Comments on discussion and conclusions:
8. Formal Aspects
Criterion
Poor (1)
Average (2)
Good (3)
Excellent (4)
Score
Structure and organisation of the manuscript
Quality of writing and style
Compliance with APA 7th edition standards
Quality of bibliographic references
Comments on formal aspects:
Overall Evaluation
Aspect
Score
Relevance and Originality (max. 16 points)
Title, Abstract and Keywords (max. 16 points)
Introduction (max. 16 points)
Theoretical Framework (max. 16 points)
Methodology (max. 24 points)
Results (max. 16 points)
Discussion and Conclusions (max. 24 points)
Formal Aspects (max. 16 points)
TOTAL SCORE
Final Opinion
Verdict
Range of scores
Mark with X
Pass
101 to 144 points
Pass with modifications
61 to 100 points
Fail
1 to 60 points
General comments for authors
Confidential comments for the editor
Evaluation instrument for review articles
General Information
- Manuscript code:
- Date of receipt:
- Deadline for evaluation:
1. Relevance and Originality
Criterion
Poor (1)
Average (2)
Good (3)
Excellent (4)
Score
Relevance of the subject reviewed
Originality of the review approach
2. Title, Abstract and Keywords
Criterion
Poor (1)
Average (2)
Good (3)
Excellent (4)
Score
Does the title adequately reflect the content?
Quality of the abstract in Spanish
Quality of the abstract in English
Relevance of the keywords
Comments on the title, summary and keywords:
3. Introduction
Criterion
Poor (1)
Average (2)
Good (3)
Excellent (4)
Score
Justification of the review
Clarity of the objectives of the review
Adequate delimitation of the subject
Contextualisation of the field of study
Comments on the introduction:
4. Methodology of the Review
Criterion
Poor (1)
Average (2)
Good (3)
Excellent (4)
Score
Clear description of the search process
Comments on the review methodology: 5. Development and Analysis
Criterion
Poor
(1)
Average (2)
Good
(3)
Excellent
(4)
Score
Logical organisation of the information
Integration of different perspectives
Critical analysis of the literature
Adequate use of synthetic tables and figures
Comments on development and analysis:
6. Discussion and Conclusions
Criterion
Poor (1)
Average (2)
Good (3)
Excellent (4)
Score
Summary of the main findings
Identification of gaps in the literature
Proposal for a research agenda
Theoretical and/or practical implications
Limitations of the review Comments on discussion and conclusions: 7. Formal aspects Poor (1) Average (2) Good (3) Excellent (4) Score Structure and organisation of the manuscript
Limitations of the review
Comments on discussion and conclusions:
7. Formal Aspects
Criterion
Poor (1)
Average (2)
Good (3)
Excellent (4)
Score
Structure and organisation of the manuscript
Quality of writing and style
Compliance with APA 7th edition standards
Breadth and currency of references
Quality of bibliographic references
Comments on formal aspects:
Overall Evaluation
Aspect
Score
Relevance and Originality (max. 16 points)
Title, Abstract and Keywords (max. 16 points)
Introduction (max. 16 points)
Review Methodology (max. 20 points)
Development and Analysis (max. 24 points)
Discussion and Conclusions (max. 20 points)
Formal Aspects (max. 20 points)
TOTAL SCORE
Final Opinion
Verdict
Range of scores
Mark with X
Approved
93 to 132 points
Approved with modifications
56 to 92 points
Failed
1 to 55 points
General comments for authors
Confidential comments for the editor
Evaluation instrument for reflective articles
General Information
- Manuscript code:
- Date of receipt:
- Deadline for evaluation:
1. Relevance and Originality
Criterion
Poor (1)
Average (2)
Good (3)
Excellent (4)
Score
Relevance of the subject addressed
Originality of the perspective or approach
Contribution to the academic debate
Relevance for the journal's audience
Comments on relevance and originality: 2. Title, Abstract and Keywords
Deficient criterion (1) Average (2) Good (3) Excellent (4) Score The title adequately reflects the content
Comments on relevance and originality:
2. Title, Abstract and Keywords
Criterion
Poor (1)
Average (2)
Good (3)
Excellent (4)
Score
Does the title adequately reflect the content?
Quality of the abstract in Spanish
Quality of the summary in English
Relevance of the keywords
Comments on title, summary and keywords: 3. Introduction
Criterion
Poor (1)
Average (2)
Good (3)
Excellent (4)
Score
Clear statement of the issue or problem
Justification of the reflection
Excellent (4)
Score
Soundness of the theoretical foundations
Criterion
Poor (1)
Average (2)
Good (3)
Excellent (4)
Score
Coherence in the argumentative structure
Originality of approaches
Score
Summary of the main ideas
Coherence with the argumentative development
Original contributions
Comments on the conclusions:
7. Formal Aspects
Criterion
Poor (1)
Average (2)
Good (3)
Excellent (4)
Score
Structure and organisation of the manuscript
Quality of writing and style
Compliance with APA 7th edition standards
Quality of bibliographical references
Comments on formal aspects:
Overall Evaluation
Aspect
Score
Relevance and Originality (max. 16 points)
Title, Summary and Keywords (max. 16 points)
Introduction (max. 16 points)
Theoretical Basis (max. 16 points)
Argument Development (max. 24 points)
Conclusions (max. 20 points)
Formal Aspects (max. 16 points)
TOTAL SCORE
Final Opinion
Verdict
Score Range
Mark with X
Pass
87 to 124 points
Pass with modifications
52 to 86 points
Fail
1 to 51 points
General comments for authors
Confidential comments for the editor
Guide to score interpretation
Evaluation scale by criterion:
- Poor (1): The criterion is not met or has serious deficiencies.
- Fair (2): The criterion is partially met, with significant deficiencies.
- Good (3): The criterion is adequately met, with minor aspects to be improved.
- Excellent (4): The criterion is outstandingly met.
Interpretation of the final decision:
For research articles:
- Pass: 101 to 144 points
- Approved with modifications: 61 to 100 points
- Failed: 1 to 60 points
For review articles:
- Approved: 93 to 132 points
- Approved with modifications: 56 to 92 points
- Failed: 1 to 55 points
For reflection articles:
- Approved: 87 to 124 points
- Approved with modifications: 52 to 86 points
- Failed: 1 to 51 points
Note: The final decision must consider both the quantitative score and the qualitative evaluation of the critical aspects of the manuscript.
