Review format – Estudios Socio-Jurídicos

Revista Estudios Socio-Jurídicos is a peer-reviewed publication for scientific dissemination that presents the results of research conducted in the sociolegal field to the academic community on a bi-annual basis. Peer review is essential in the contributions published in this journal to preserve and strengthen scientific rigor in this area; to this end, in view of your vast knowledge on the subject, the journal’s editorial board has appointed you to evaluate one of the articles received.

1. Article title
Date of original document delivery to reviewer:
Date of judgment submitted to the Journal:
2. Reviewer’s identification details
Full name(s):
Identity document	Citizenship card No.__________________________ Foreign identification card No. ______________________  Passport No. __________________________
Highest level of education	Post-doctoral  Doctorate  Master’s degree  Specialization  Undergraduate degree
Degree’s field of knowledge
Institution awarding degree
Specific field of knowledge in which you are an expert
Main institutional affiliation
Have you uploaded your resume in the Colombian ScienTI?	Yes  No
Email address
Landline		Mobile phone

 

3. Relevance of conceptual contributions

a. The article contributes to the construction of new concepts, redevelopment of existing ones, and modification of sociolegal research.

 

1. Strongly disagree
 2. Disagree
 3. Neither agree nor disagree
 4. Agree
 5. Completely agree

 

Comments, remarks, or suggestions:

 

b. Do the title and abstract accurately reflect the article’s content?

 

1. Strongly disagree
 2. Disagree
 3. Neither agree nor disagree
 4. Agree
 5. Completely agree

 

 

Comments, remarks, or suggestions:

 

4. References and state of the art review

a). When reading the content, it is possible to distinguish the contributions made by the author from the information provided by other texts and authors.

 

1. Strongly disagree
 2. Disagree
 3. Neither agree nor disagree
 4. Agree
 5. Completely agree

 

Comments, remarks, or suggestions:

 

b). The author makes use of the most relevant sources in the field of knowledge of the paper in question.

 

1. Strongly disagree
 2. Disagree
 3. Neither agree nor disagree
 4. Agree
 5. Completely agree

 

Comments, remarks, or suggestions:

 

5. Methodological rigor

a). The objectives set out by the author in the Introduction/Abstract are fully met; in other words, the stated objectives and the results obtained are consistent.

 

1. Strongly disagree
 2. Disagree
 3. Neither agree nor disagree
 4. Agree
 5. Completely agree

Comments, remarks, or suggestions:

 

b) The methodology implemented and the results obtained from research are clear and consistent.

 

1. Strongly disagree
 2. Disagree
 3. Neither agree nor disagree
 4. Agree
 5. Completely agree

 

Comments, remarks, or suggestions:

 

6. Clarity and consistency in the results’ presentation

The article’s structure and style are accurate and simple, also being the most suitable to understand the type of information provided.

 

 

1. Strongly disagree
 2. Disagree
 3. Neither agree nor disagree
 4. Agree
 5. Completely agree

 

Comments, remarks, or suggestions:

 

7. Relevance of the results obtained 

a) The article’s topic, approach, and results are relevant for the development of the corresponding field.

 

 

1. Strongly disagree
 2. Disagree
 3. Neither agree nor disagree
 4. Agree
 5. Completely agree

 

Comments, remarks, or suggestions:

 

b). The ideas included in the text are soundly supported and backed up to meet the research objectives.

1. Strongly disagree
 2. Disagree
 3. Neither agree nor disagree
 4. Agree
 5. Completely agree

 

Comments, remarks, or suggestions:

 

c) In your opinion, does the article meet the classification indicated by the author?

 

Yes
 No

 

Why?

 

If the answer is no, or if you believe that the author’s classification is not clear, which do you think is the most suitable article type?

• Scientific and technological research article
• Reflection paper
• Review article
• Short article
• Case report
• Thematic review
• Letters to the editor
• Editorial
• Translation
• Reflection paper (non-research-derived)
• Literature review (a bibliographical outline)

 

8. Score

j. According to your assessment, you believe that the article quality is…

 

Excellent          

Good 

Acceptable      

 

k. The article must be…

 

 Accepted as it is

 Accepted on the condition that minor revisions are made prior to its publication

 Accepted, provided the version including the corrections requested by you is subject to a subsequent review

 Rejected

 

9. The reader’s profile

 

Why?

 

Why?

 

10. Comments Principio del formulario

 

Please write a synopsis of the academic evaluation, containing the most important remarks on the assessed article. Highlight any contribution, gap, limitation, and suggestion for the text. Use as many pages as deemed necessary.