Evaluation form of theoretical-empirical articles

The purpose of evaluating articles 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 article, this may be edited by the editorial board of the journal.

An excellent review!



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

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.

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: