/ JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN HEALTH SCIENCES - JRIHS

EXTERNAL EVALUATION FORM

ACADEMIC PEERS

Mr. (Ms) (Dr.)(Professor Dr.) (Professor emeritus)

The following format will allow the members of the editorial committee to determine if the manuscript received meets the selection criteria of the Journal of Research and Innovation in Health Sciences - JRIHS. According to your evaluation, the journal will decide whether or not to allow the article to continue with the editorial process.

  1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PAPER TO BE EVALUATED

TITLE OF THE PAPER:
DATE / DAY / MONTH / YEAR / COMMENTS
Delivery of the document to the evaluator
Preparation of the evaluation
Delivery of the completed evaluation
  1. BASIC DATA OF THE EVALUATOR

Full name and surname / Birthdate
Identification document / Nationality / City of residence
Email / Job title
highest education / Postdoctoral / PhD / Master / Specialization
Institution in which you are currently linked / Position
Link of CvLac / Last update
  1. PAPERS EVALUATION

3.1.OBJECTIVES
The evaluation by external peer specialists, aims to determine the originality, quality and relevance of a manuscript, sent to the scientific journal JRIHS for publication, according to the guidelines proposed. Every evaluator or pair will give a concept about the publication related to contributions, domain of the topic, way of presenting the information, strengths and weaknesses of it. Based on the comments and observations of the external evaluators and the editorial quality report, the journal will decide whether the manuscript will be part or not of the number being prepared for publication.
3.2.CONFIDENTIALITY
To guarantee the impartiality of the academic evaluation by external peers, the editorial committee of the Journal uses a double-blind evaluation system, where the evaluators are unaware of the names of the authors of the manuscripts and likewise, the authors do not know the name of the evaluator. The confidentiality of the document also implies that none of its parties can use the information associated with the manuscript for a purpose other than that established.
3.3.INSTRUCTION FOR THE DILIGENCE OF THE FORM
  1. Please complete the form in its entirety by computer mean.
  2. Be clear and precise in the concepts issued. In the sections where scientific quality is asked, please be detailed enough in your comments.
  3. Do not modify or alter questions or options of the questionnaire. This evaluation was designed to respond to the editorial policies of the Journal, if you modify the form in any way, your evaluation will be canceled.
  4. Your evaluation should focus on the relevance, the methodology, the mastery of the subject and the quality of the data, it is not necessary to evaluate the writing style or the form of the manuscript. This evaluation will be carried out by the editorial committee, once the manuscript passes the external evaluation.
  5. Once the evaluation process is finished, you must send via e-mail, the signed evaluation form, to the e-mail
  6. If you can not meet the deadline for the evaluation, please inform the editor in a timely manner.
  7. Any concerns that may arise or additional information that you require, please communicate via email. Your concerns will be resolved as soon as possible.

3.4.QUALITATIVE EVALUATION
3.4.1.STRUCTURE AND FORM OF THE DOCUMENT
The manuscript contains: / YES / NOT
  1. Title in Spanish

  1. Title in English

  1. Maximum number of authors according to the requirements of the journal

  1. Last academic degree awarded by the author or authors

  1. Institutional affiliation of the authors

  1. Abstract in Spanish

  1. Abstract

  1. Keywords

  1. Keywords (In Spanish)

  1. Bibliography

  1. References in Vancouver standards

CRITERIA OF EVALUATION / COMMENTS
  1. Do you consider that the subject and focus of the presented paper are relevant to the current state of the discipline to which it refers?
/ YESI
NOtT
  1. Does the manuscript include updated bibliographical references related to the research subject?
/ YESI
NOtT
  1. Is the information accurate and reliable regarding the handling of theoretical concepts, procedures and applications?
/ YESI
NOtT
  1. Is it possible to classify the article according to the parameters of the journal? Please mark with an X the type of document in which you would classify the evaluated manuscript
/ YESI
NOtT
  1. Can the document be considered as an original text?
/ YESI
NOtT
3.5.QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION
3.5.1.SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS
EVALUATION CRITERIA / CALIFICATION
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
  1. Is the approach of the problem related to the proposed objectives?

  1. Are the objectives of the research clearly presented and justified in the document?

  1. Is the introduction and conclusions clearly identified?

  1. Is the methodology adequate for the proposed objectives?

  1. Is the mastery of theoretical concepts clear and precise?

  1. Are ideas argued consistently?

  1. Is there adequate evidence of data management?

  1. Is there a clear relationship between the title, the problem statement, the objectives, the theoretical framework, the methodology and the conclusions?

  1. Is the theme developed relevant and updated for the area of knowledge?

  1. Does the study comply with international standards on bioethics?

3.5.2.PRESENTATION OF INFORMATION
  1. Is the language used clear and in accordance with the requirements of the subject?

  1. Is the presentation and development of the ideas coherent?

  1. Is the document articulated in its entirety?

  1. Are the bibliographic references used updated and / or current?

  1. Is there good language management (writing, spelling, etc.)?

3.5.3.BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
  1. Is there evidence of an adequate use of the bibliographic sources throughout the document?

  1. Is it possible to differentiate the contributions of the authors of the information found in the bibliographic references?

  1. Can the bibliographic references used be classified as original documents?

3.6.CLASSIFICATION OF THE PAPER
  1. According to the guidelines presented by Colciencias. How would you classify the article?

Original scientific paper / Reflection paper / Review paper
Short paper / Case study / Topic review
Letter to the editor / Translation / Documents of non-investigative reflection
Editorial / Bibliographic review / Others
3.7.RECOMMENDATIONS
Publish without modifications / Publish with modifications / Do not publish
3.8.COMMENTS (All that specific information that requires a correction or detailed review by the authors must be correctly referenced (page, line number and text))

3.9. DECLARATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

I understand that I will have access to confidential information, for which I will not be able to make use of the information to which I have access (such as disclosing the results prior to publication, or disclosing the concepts developed) for personal benefit, making it known or making it available for the benefit of any other person and organization. If reading the paper I find that there is an ethical impediment or conflict of interests that may affect my concept, I will inform the editor to assign the document to another evaluator.

  1. ETHICAL STANDARDS

I declare that I know and accept the international standards for scientific publications to which the Journal is attached, in particular, the ethics standards of publications.

______

SIGNATURE OF THE EVALUATOR