Guide for Reviewers
with review form
International Studies
Dear Sir / Madam, thank you for accepting to participate in the peer review process of the journal International Studies. Your expertise and opinion will help us make the best possible decision regarding the manuscript. We kindly ask you to submit the review form within the agreed time and to acquainte yourself with the Publication Ethics Statement of the journal, especially section 4 which deals with the duties of reviewers and the general guidelines described in section 1.
Reviewed manuscript information:
| TITLE OF THE REVIEWED PAPER: | |
| DATE OF RECEIVING THE PAPER: | |
| DATE OF REVIEW: |
Paper reviewing criteria:
In the table below, please evaluate the paper according to the given criteria and ratings on the right. Grade 1 – insufficient; 2 – sufficient; 3 – good, 4 – very good; 5 – excellent. In case the content of the paper does not meet the set criteria, or if you are undecided on the grade, please choose the CBE option – Cannot be evaluated.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | CBE | |
| Significance of the research problem | ||||||
| Quality of problem formulation | ||||||
| Adequacy of research conducted (if applicable) | ||||||
| Research methodology (research problems, hypotheses, sampling, method) | ||||||
| Accuracy in citing sources and literature | ||||||
| Quality of analysis of researched case | ||||||
| Scientific and professional contribution to the field | ||||||
| Stimulus for further research | ||||||
| Content structure | ||||||
| Writing style | ||||||
| Overall grade |
Publication recommendation (please select the appropriate category)
| 1) The article can be published as is. |
| 2) The article can be published, provided the minor changes recommended in this review have been implemented. |
| 3) Return the manuscript to the reviewer after the major changes recommended in this review have been implemented. |
| 4) The text should be rejected. |
Reviewed paper classification – recommendation (please select the appropriate category)
| 1) Original scientific paper: Contains theoretical or practical results of hitherto unpublished original research. |
| 2) Preliminary communication: Contains new scientific data, but without enough detail to allow verification as in original scientific papers. The paper brings new results of scientific research that are still ongoing and because of its topicality requires fast publication. |
| 3) Review article: Original, concise and critical representation of the state and tendency of development of an area of research, with reflection and judgment. The literature cited should be sufficiently comprehensive to allow good insight and inclusion into the research area. |
REVIEW
(The review of the paper needs to be based on the review grades and needs to explain the recommendation on publication and classification)
/The review should not exceed 3600 characters/
The reviewer’s recommendations on minor and major changes necessary for improving the article’s quality (please explain).
____________________________________________________________________
FOR EDITORS ONLY (not disclosed to the author):
Reviewer information
| NAME: | |
| TITLE (ACADEMIC RANK; full professor, associate professor, research assistant, etc.): | |
| INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION: | |
| CONTACT INFORMATION (telephone, e-mail): |