ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
FORM FOR THE EVALUATION OF SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES
2
IMPORTANT
3
Dear Reviewer, your evaluations will be handled confidentially by the Editorial Committee unless otherwise indicated. The journal operates under the “Double-Blind” review methodology and, since 2024, also implements “Open Review” for certain articles.
4
5
6
7
A period of 15 calendar days is recommended to complete the review.
8
Select the type of evaluation to be conducted:☐ Double-blind
9
☐ Open
10
Title of the Article:[Write here]
11
Date received:[Write here]
12
Date returned:[Write here]
13
Reviewer Information
14
Full name:[Write here]
15
Academic degree:[Write here]
16
Area(s) of expertise:[Write here]
17
ORCID (if you do not have one, please register at https://orcid.org/)[Write here]
18
Affiliated institution:[Write here]
19
Position/Title:[Write here]
20
Correo electrónico: [Write here]
21
22
SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE EVALUATION RUBRIC
23
ScoreLevelDescription
24
5ExcellentFully meets the criterion with high academic rigor
25
4GoodAdequately meets the criterion
26
3AcceptablePartially meets the criterion; improvements required
27
2DeficientShows significant weaknesses
28
1Very deficientMeets the criterion, but insufficiently
29
0Does not meetDoes not meet the criterion
30
31
Evaluation Criteria
32
CriterionCriterion DescriptionScore (0–5)
Select the score that best fits		Comments
33
Academic ContributionThe article presents a novel and relevant contribution to economics and society
34
The study addresses a relevant and significant research problem for the discipline.
35
Purpose and Theoretical FoundationThe objective or purpose of the article is clearly formulated, relevant, and grounded in academic literature.
36
The article presents a relevant and sufficient theoretical or conceptual framework to support the study.
37
There is logical consistency between the theoretical framework, the hypotheses or research questions, and the stated objectives.
38
MethodologyThe methodology and study design are appropriate to address the research problem.
39
The techniques or instruments for data collection are clearly described and provide evidence of validity and reliability when appropriate.
40
Las fuentes de datos utilizadas son confiables, pertinentes y adecuadas para el análisis realizado.
41
Resultados y discusiónLos resultados del estudio se presentan de manera clara, objetiva y organizada.
42
La discusión interpreta adecuadamente los resultados y los relaciona con la literatura o el marco teórico.
43
El análisis de la información es riguroso y coherente con el diseño metodológico del estudio.
44
ConclusionesLas conclusiones se derivan lógicamente de los resultados y responden al objetivo del estudio.
45
Los datos, tablas o análisis estadísticos respaldan adecuadamente los argumentos y conclusiones presentados.
46
Aspectos formalesEl manuscrito presenta una redacción clara, coherente y adecuada para un texto académico.
47
Total 0.00
48
49
Dictamen del revisor (seleccione un ítem)
50
Publicar tal y como está (nota 100)FALSE
51
Publicar con modificaciones menores (nota entre 99 y 71)FALSE
52
Revisiones mayores (nota entre 60 y 70)FALSE
53
Rechazar (nota menor a 60)FALSE
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100