Reviewers are encouraged to keep the following in mind:

 

Comments to the manuscript should be complete and detailed and should contain clear opinions about the strengths, weaknesses, relevance, and importance of the manuscript. Specific comments referring to sections, pages, or paragraphs are preferred. Comments should be constructive and suggestions for improving the manuscript should be offered.

 

Important elements for the reviewer to consider:

 

General Content

Does the title of the article clearly reflect its content?

Does it include abstract, introduction (state of the art, definition of the research problem, objectives), methods, results, and discussion?

Is the relevance and contribution of the work to the disciplinary field evident both in the abstract, introduction, and other parts of the paper?

Is the information presented relevant to the audience?

Are the objectives clearly stated, and does the development of the paper respond to them?

Is the literature review appropriate and up-to-date? Are you aware of any references that the author could add and discuss? Is the reference list done according to APA style?

 

Technical aspects

Does the manuscript make a contribution to knowledge?

Does the manuscript have theoretical relevance?

Are the conclusions appropriately based on the data?

 

For quantitative research:

Is the manuscript technically correct in terms of method, procedure, and data analysis?

Is the statistical power of the research adequate?

Are the findings of the research considered representative?

Are the findings of the research valid?

 

For qualitative research:

Does the research meet the criteria for transferability?

Is the data analysis described in an explicit and clear manner?

Is there coherence between the theoretical model of the research and the qualitative methodology used?

 

For systematic reviews:

Does the search for the sources to be reviewed follow a clear procedure?

Are the consulted databases extensive and include at least one of the following?: Scopus, Web of Science, CAPES.

Are the search terms clearly indicated, do they correspond to the objective of the review, and are they adequate to find the relevant sources?

Are the criteria for inclusion and exclusion of sources clearly formulated?

Is there a clear documentation of the number of sources initially found, the depth of their review, the eventual exclusion of sources according to the exclusion criteria, and of the final set to be reviewed?

Are there reasons to believe that relevant sources were left out?

Is the final number of sources reviewed enough to save the audience an important amount of work or is the number so small that the audience might as well read the original sources?

Does the review critically analyze the quality of the sources reviewed at the methodological level and the relevance of their contribution?

 

Tables and Figures

Are figures and tables really necessary? If so, are they well designed and do they help to understand the text?

Is the quality of the figures (or photographs) of good enough to be reproduced in the journal?

 

Additional elements

Is the paper written smoothly and is it easy to read?

Is the length of the manuscript adequate (maximum 30 pages including all sections)? Are there unnecessary repetitions?

Does the manuscript follow APA submission guidelines?

 

Based on these elements, and after careful review, the reviewer should provide one of the following recommendations to the Editor regarding the manuscript, making reference to each of the above items:

 

Accept Submission: The article does not require any modifications.

Revisions Required: Some modifications are required or it is necessary to clarify some of its sections. The editor will review the revisions, without another round of reviews.

Resubmit for Review: After a thorough revision of the manuscript by the authors, the manuscript goes to a another round with reviewers.

Decline Submission: the quality of the manuscript is not good enough to be published in the journal or the manuscript is of little interest to the journal's readers.