Peer review

REER has a list of national and international peers (peer review), selected according to the scientific relevance and production shown in the specific areas of the journal: Religious Education, Religious Education Didactics, and Teacher Training. External Reviewers have a guideline [On-line Revision Report] to make judgments and recommendations about the article subject to revision.

	External Reviewers Noticeboard
	On-line Revision Report (Double Blind Review System)

 

EXTERNAL REVIEWERS NOTICEBOARD

NAME. INSTITUTION, COUNTRY.	E-MAIL
NAME. INSTITUTION, COUNTRY.	E-MAIL
NAME. INSTITUTION, COUNTRY.	E-MAIL
NAME. INSTITUTION, COUNTRY.	E-MAIL

 

 

 

ON-LINE REVISION REPORT
(Double Blind Review System)

Mr/ Mrs Evaluator,:

After reviewing the article subject to evaluation, please fill in the following ON-LINE REVISION REPORT. All fields are compulsory.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE ARTICLE Title of the Article:

Article’s topic:

Journal section: INDIQUE LA SECCION Artículo Resención Reseña Tesis Disertación Otros

Reviewer: E-Mail:

ADJUSTMENT OF THE ARTICLE TO THE EDITORIAL LINE OF THE JOURNAL. Does the article adjust itself to the general themes of the journal?  Yes  No Is the article relevant for the journal?  Yes  No Does the contribution show a sound process of investigation and/or meaningful study in some of the thematic areas of the journal?  Yes  No ASSESSMENT OF THE CONTENT AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE ARTICLE ACCORDING TO THE NORMS AND REGULATIONS OF THE JOUNAL. Does the article constitute a new and original contribution about the topic?  Yes  No Is the content developed coherently and systematically throughout the article?  Yes  No Is the content of the article appropriate for the different audiences of the journal?  Yes  No Is the title appropriate for the content of the article?  Yes  No Does the abstract provide enough information about the objectives, method, and conclusions of the article?  Yes  No Are the key words appropriate?  Yes  No Is the article appropriate for its audience/s?  Yes  No Is the main issue/problem consistent with the theoretical frame of study?  Yes  No Is the methodology coherent with the outcomes of the study?  Yes  No Is the analysis of the outcomes or the discussion of the study consistent with the conclusions?  Yes  No Are the references appropriate? Do they follow the norms and regulations established by the journal?  Yes  No Revision and Reviews Does the revision/review constitute a new and original contribution about the topic?  Yes  No Is the content developed coherently and systematically throughout the revision/review?  Yes  No Is the content appropriate for the different audiences of the journal?  Yes  No Is the title coherent with the source book?  Yes  No Does the abstract provide enough information about the review?  Yes  No Are the key words appropriate?  Yes  No Is the article appropriately written for a specific audience?  Yes  No Are the references appropriate? Do they follow the norms and regulations established by the journal?  Yes  No

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE EDITOR Accepted Article: Accept article without modifications. Articles accepted prior revision and corrections: Could be accepted if previously corrected. Rejected article: The article is not acceptable for the journal.

OBSERVATIONS Write here any aspect of the On-Line Information Report needing further explanation:

If you wish to send a more detailed report about the article, attach a Word archive with your observations, appreciations, and suggestions: Attach contribution [Word Archive]