Guidelines for Reviewers

Manuscript Evaluation

 PART A: Editorial Office Only

SECTION I – Information about the Reviewer and Paper 

Reviewer’s Name:










Manuscript Number:






Date Sent To Reviewer:


Date Expected From Reviewer:



PART B: Reviewer Only
SECTION I – Information about the quality of English literature 



Quality of information








English presentation




SECTION II Comments per Section of Manuscript

General comment:





















SECTION III - Please rate the following: (1 = Excellent) (2 = Good) (3 = Fair) (4 = Poor) 



Contribution To The Field:


Technical Quality:


Clarity Of Presentation :


Depth Of Research:



SECTION IV - Recommandation: (Kindly Mark With An X)

Accept As Is:


Requires Minor Corrections:


Requires Moderate Revision:


Requires Major Revision:


Submit To Another Publication Such As:


Reject On Grounds Of (Please Be Specific):












 SECTION V: Additional Comments

Please add any additional comments (Including comments/suggestions regarding online supplementary materials, if any):

The Abstract was not written according to the Journal’s length requirement (100-200 words). The abstract has 637 words. The Abstract has literature cited even if it was clearly stated that it should not contain. There are some spelling mistakes. There is a certain inconsistency in the Writing style: in some paragraphs the author writes with Times New Roman 12 and in others with Times New Roman 10,5. The author keeps making a mistake between : and ;

The Author wrote the key words in capital letters at the beginning of the article and not after the abstract, as it was required. The key words are not words (between 3-10 as required) but rather they are key concepts (2)

Paper layout lacks consistency. No capital letter where there should be, abbreviations are not explained, it is not the same writing style, sometimes it is very academic by the words the author uses and sometimes it is general English. Some obvious grammar mistakes, not frequent but existent.

The Endnotes and the References need to be reviewed and written according to the Journal’s requirements.

It should be paid attention to the letter that I mentioned. It should be erased and reviewed the whole article.



Suggested Revisions

  1. To reformulate the abstract in order to eliminate the bibliographic references.
  2. To present additional pieces of information with the purpose of making the research methodology to be relevant.(It is recommendable to attach a table as appendix at the end of the paper, containing the names of the companies submitted to the study in order to eliminate the suspicion regarding the origin of the presented data).
  3. The correction of the percentages presented in the figures in accordance with the ones presented in the text of the paper
  4. Also, the quality of English can be improved.


The template of the guidelines for reviewers can be downloaded here.