Date ………………..……
Review of an article in the
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia Geographica Physica journal
Article title: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
EVALUATION
#
Article evaluation criteria
YES
1.
Is the work original?
2.
Does the title match the contents?
3.
Is the structure of the article
NO
correct, clear and logical?
4.
Were appropriate research
methods applied?
5.
Is the level of factual contents
sufficient for publication?
6.
Is the terminology correct?
7.
Is quoting of literature correct?
8.
Are illustrations and tables made
in the correct way?
9.
Are research results interpreted
correctly?
10.
Is the presented problem (aim)
solved?
11.
Do conclusions result from the
contents of the work?
12.
Is the volume of the article
appropriate?
* - remarks may be further elaborated on in the “Detailed remarks…” section
1
REMARKS*
Detailed remarks and grounds for the evaluation
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Reviewer’s suggestion for accepting the work for publishing:
1. no corrections *
2. after minor corrections *
3. after thorough editing of the contents *
4. the work does not qualify for publishing *
Reviewer’s statement
The Author /Authors*
is not /are not *
known to me *
The Author /Authors* is / are* known to me *,
but no conflict of interests occurs **
* - delete as applicable
**- the Reviewer may not be in a scientific conflict with the Author; there are no direct personal relations between the Reviewer and the
Author (blood relationship, legal relations); there are no professional relations of subordination between the Reviewer and the Author; the
Reviewer and the Author have not collaborated scientifically for the last two years before writing the review.
(not to be made public)
………………………………………………………………………………
Reviewer’s name and surname, title, degree
……………………………………………………..
Reviewer’s signature
2