Manuscript review
MANUSCRIPT REVIEW FORM
of the scientific papers for
The Annals of University "Dunarea de Jos" of
Galati, Fascicle IX
Title of the paper:
Authors of the paper:
........
1. Scientific review:
The article is reviewed, taking
into account the criteria specific to a
technical scientific paper.
If: - the minimum acceptable mark (satisfactory)
is not achieved at the folowing criteria:
specific to the journal domain,
originality, scientific relevance,
the paper will not be accepted;
- the minimum acceptable mark (satisfactory)
is not achieved at the folowing criteria:
clarity of exposition, references
or there is a possibility of improvement of the
minimum conditions stipulated at the previous
item, the paper will be proposed to be revised.
|
Criteria |
Level of achieving the criteria |
|
Insatisfactory |
Satisfactory |
Good |
Very good |
|
Specific to the journal domain |
|
|
|
|
|
Originality |
|
|
|
|
|
Scientific relevance |
|
|
|
|
|
Significant experimental results |
|
|
|
|
|
Clarity of exposition |
|
|
|
|
|
References |
|
|
|
|
Conclusions
and comments:
.....
...
.........
2.
Editing review:
|
Criteria |
Level of achieving the criteria |
|
Insatisfactory |
Satisfactory |
Good |
Very good |
|
Respecting the elaborating methods
of a scientific paper |
|
|
|
|
|
Respecting the editing instruction |
|
|
|
|
|
Clarity of figures, graphics, photos |
|
|
|
|
|
Expression mode |
|
|
|
|
Conclusions and
comments:
...
........................................
RECOMMENDATION
|
Recommendation |
YES |
NO |
|
The paper can be published: |
|
|
|
The paper can be published after
revising the scientific content: |
|
|
|
The paper can be published after
revising the editing style: |
|
|
Conclusions and
comments:
..............
.................................
| |
Referee
(for reviewing) |
Authors
(for editing) |
|
Date of paper delivery: |
|
|
|
Date of paper reception: |
|
|
PUBLISHING
resolution
|
|
Name |
Affiliation |
Date |
Signature |
|
Scientific referee: |
|
|
|
|
|
Editing secretary: |
|
|
|
|
