Manuscript evaluation criteria

Title: ......

Reviewers may choose the form of their review. The table below may be used or an extensive text could be written. Either way, it is envisaged that the main points of the table are considered, particularly point 18: Additional Comments.

  1. Text’s type
/ (1) article
(2) essay
(3) progress report
(4) review essay
(5) book review
(6) critique
(7) commentary
Question / Answer or assessment
definitely yes / generally yes / generally not / definitely not
  1. Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of PS/SS?

  1. Does the paper present the author’s novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data?

  1. Are substantial conclusions reached?

  1. Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined?

  1. Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions?

  1. Is the description of experiments and/or calculations complete and sufficiently precise to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists?

  1. Does the author give proper credit to related work and do they clearly indicate their original contribution?

  1. Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?

  1. Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?

  1. Is the overall presentation well structured and clear?

  1. Is the language fluent and precise?

  1. Is the polemic essential rather than personal?

  1. Are symbols, abbreviations, units, and mathematical formulae correctly defined and used?

  1. Should any parts of the paper (text, tables, figures, formulae) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated?

  1. Are the number and quality of references used appropriate?

  1. Is the non-English-language (in case of an English-language manuscript) or non-Polish-language (in case of a Polish-language manuscript) literature referred to?

  1. Is the amount and quality of supplementary material appropriate?

  1. Additional comments

  1. General assessment of the manuscript
/ excellent / good / fair / poor
  1. Recommendation to the Editor
/ accept as it is / accept with minor revision / resubmit after major revision / reject

Referees are kindly asked to place their comments in the appropriate cells of the rows 1 to 17. If a question does not apply to the reviewed manuscript, please write ‘does not apply’, or ‘DNA’ in any cell of the row. If the Reviewer has no opinion about the given question, (s)he is requested to leave it unanswered. If a question does not require any longer answer, please tick the appropriate cell for its approval. Please place other comments in row 18, and clearly mark a chosen option in the rows 0, 19 and 20.