| ARTICLE REVIEW FORM | YES | NO |
| Does the reviewed article correspond to the subject of the issue? | ||
| Are the problems discussed in the article new? | ||
| Does the article stimulate discussion of important issues or alternative points of view? | ||
| Is the relevance of research task proved? | ||
| Is the methodology of research clear enough? | ||
| Does this paper contain references to earlier studies focusing on similar tasks? | ||
| Is the experiment on which the conclusions were based described convincingly and reliably? | ||
| Does the paper have conclusions summarizing obtained results? | ||
| Do conclusions have any statements which are not derived from the paper content? | ||
| Are the results clearly presented? | ||
| Does the paper have any text with incorrect logic? | ||
| Does the paper have any statements which can be interpreted ambiguously? | ||
| Are the conclusions correctly / logically explained? | ||
| Does the reviewer recommend this paper to be published? There are possible types of decision: | ||
| Accept without revision; | ||
| Accept after minor revision; | ||
| Reconsider after major revision; | ||
| Reject, typically because it does not fit the criteria outlined above of originality, importance to the field, cross-discipline interest, or sound methodology. | ||
| Specific Reviewer Comments and Suggestions: |