REVIEWER RECOMMENDATIONS
Please evaluate these articles using the following five evaluation criteria along with your recommendation
1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Good, 4 = Very good, 5 = Excellent
| Evaluation Criteria |
Score |
| 1. Originality: Does the article apply innovative research techniques? |
|
| 2. Relevance: Does this article present relevant information? |
|
| 3. Signification: Does this article stimulate discussion of important issues or alternative viewpoints? |
|
| 4. Cohesive approach: Are the methods used by the authors clearly thought out and logical? |
|
| 5. Logical structure: Is the article well organized and well written? |
|
6. Has the author followed the submission instructions (Yes/No)?
7. Final decision:
(Accept as it is/ Accept with minor revision/ Accept with major revision/ Reject)
8. Instructions for minor revision:
9. Instructions for major revision:
10. Reviewer’s comments to the authors:
(Please highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the authors’ article and justify your assessment):
11. Do you recommend this article for the ASCSPub Award (Yes/No):
12. If “Yes” in which of the two categories below do you recommend this article?
Award Categories
Excellent Paper Award (Yes/No)
Best paper Award (Yes/No)
