Manuscript Evaluation Form: Research article (Theoretical-empirical)

Article Title*

1. Writing*

The writing and the structure of the texts must be clear, objective, and concise in relation to a scientific paper. A scientific paper is understood to be a text carried out with careful methodology, containing an argument based on scientific knowledge and not on common sense.


The objective of the work must be well defined. This means that the author is able to establish one or more objectives, support the argumentation around such objectives, and finally, achieve the proposed objectives.

3. Theoretical basis*

The theoretical basis of the paper should be consistent. By consistency we mean coherence in the exposition of the ideas contained in the text and the relationship between them and the other elements of the paper (methodology, discussion and conclusion).

4. Methodology*

It must be clear and consistent with the theoretical framework and the objectives of the article.

5. Results*

They should be relevant and consistent with the methodology and discussed in relation to other reviewed studies.

6. Conclusion*

It must be consistent and coherent with the proposed objectives.

7. General Evaluation*

Please provide a qualitative assessment of the manuscript in the space below. It is recommended that comments be provided on each of the items evaluated above, and that they be as clear and specific as possible. This space is also intended for general comments that could lead to an improvement in the manuscript. Such comments may pertain to the structure of the manuscript (division of sections/subsections), the manner in which the results are presented (graphs, tables, etc.), or other useful comments for the authors.

8. Reviewer Conclusion* 


9. In compliance with Open Science, we ask if you (reviewer) agree with the publication of the manuscript evaluation reports, according to the following options:*