The purpose of evaluating manuscripts submitted to REGEPE is to contribute to the quality of the academic production presented.
We recommend that you – reviewer, evaluator –, when issuing an opinion or evaluation on the manuscript considered for publication by REGEPE, do so, bearing in mind the codes of conduct and guidelines suggested by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which are also available on our website for consultation.
In line with open science practices, REGEPE offers you the option of opening the peer review process, with or without identifying your name. If you authorize this disclosure, simply select one of the options in the last question of “Compliance with Open Science”, which appears at the end of this form.
In order to confirm and recognize your evaluation, in addition to giving visibility to your valuable volunteer effort in the preparation of reviews, REGEPE has the ReviewerCredits system integrated with the journal's system, and you can select the options you want. ReviewerCredits is a commercial website that provides a free service for scholars to track, verify, and showcase their peer-reviewed, publicizing their editorial contributions to academic journals.
We inform you that, in the case of disclosing evaluations that support the decision to publish an manuscript, this may be edited by the editorial board of the journal.
An excellent review!
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
Points to be evaluated in the Case study
1. Dilemma or problem
Is the dilemma or problem communicated clearly? Does it inform when, where and in what context does it happen? What is the degree of interest provoked by the dilemma?
Is there clarity regarding the protagonist and information about who he is?
3. Information and/or data about the enterprise or organization and its context
Is there information about sector, type of industry, location, country, where in the life cycle is the organization, time period? Does the information and data provided in the case and in your Teaching Notes allow students / participants to properly carry out the diagnosis and/or propose solutions? Is there alignment of the theoretical perspectives offered in the Teaching Notes with the data in the Teaching Case?
4. Orientation of the Case study
Is the case for diagnosis of the problem or to propose solutions for the problem presented? Is this guidance clearly and explicitly stated? Does it clearly present which theory or theories underlie the analysis of the case?
5. Case study writing
Does the text use past tense? The sequence in which information about the main problems facing the protagonist is clear and compelling? Is the case well written?
6. Size of the Case study
Is it possible to present the entire case in one class (2h-classes)? Is it necessary to recommend emphasis on some aspect of the case or would its application require more than one class?
7. Neutrality of the case with respect to answers, solutions, recommendations
Does the case not prompt or bias toward possible answers, solutions, and recommendations? The text allows participants to discuss and freely use the recommended theory(s) to arrive at the analysis of the problem(s), and indicate possible solutions.
Points to be evaluated in the Teaching Notes
8. Learning objectives
Are the learning objectives clear in the Teaching notes? Is there an indication of the skills that will be developed?
9. Theoretical perspectives presented
Are they adequate and do they allow to examine the case in breadth and depth? Would you recommend / add any other theory to complement and deepen the analysis of the case?
10. Preparation and tasks for the students
Is there an indication and clarity of the tasks required of the students for adequate preparation for the discussion of the case and participation in the classroom (plenary session)?
11. Diagnosis and/or solution to the dilemma
Do the teaching notes direct the teacher/facilitator (and the case itself) so that they can guide students to arrive at a diagnosis of the problem and/or alternative solutions? Are there indications for selecting the best solution (if applicable)? Does it provide support for them to be able to propose steps for implementing the solution (how, when and who would participate in this implementation)?
Points to be evaluated for Practice in the classroom
12. Potential for enthusiasm in student engagement
Is there a possibility of generating enthusiasm and spontaneous student participation? Does it make it possible to generate interaction between students (with the support of the teacher) and to co-create knowledge and develop skills?
13. Additional suggestions for dynamics and classroom application
Are there rooms for room arrangement (or breakout rooms*) for case application? Is there any indication for the teacher / facilitator regarding the use of multimedia equipment, frame or other resources?
* The Small Meeting Room or A Separate Part of An Internet Meeting Where Small Group Can Discussion The Private Issue Before Returning To the Main Meeting (Cambridge Dictionary).
14. General Evaluation
Indicate in the space below additional suggestions to the authors to improve the article, for example, in relation to: Form (structure, language, readability) or other useful comments to the authors.
15. Reviewer Conclusion
16. In compliance with Open Science, we ask if you (reviewer) agree with the publication of the manuscript evaluation reports, according to the following options: