Technological article evaluation form

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!



Article title

1. Theme

Does the introductory text explain the theme in which the article is inserted? Is the theme related to entrepreneurship?

2. Problem or Opportunity

Is the problem or opportunity clearly identified? Is the context presented current and relevant? Are facts and supporting data presented for the arguments raised?

3. Objective(s)

Is the objective(s) clearly identified? Is there a clear and relevant practical contribution?

4. Writing the Technological Article

Is the entire text written in clear, non-technical language, accessible to a wide audience? Has unnecessary jargon and technical terminology been used?

5. Scientific Rationale

Does the text present a scientific dialogue (even if brief) with the main authors related to its theme? Is there a minimum scientific basis? Is it demonstrated what is already known and/or explained the main concepts necessary for the proposal of the article?

6. Methodological Procedures

Are the procedures carried out for data collection and analysis presented in a way that is necessary to prove scientific rigor (even if succinctly)? Is there use of visual schemes that demonstrate the research step-by-step?

7. Presentation of the Solution

Is the proposed solution properly described? Is the solution consistent with the identified problem/opportunity? Does the proposal go beyond description and offer prescriptive advice? Are the proposed advice duly substantiated?

8. Practical Contribution

Is there demonstration of relevant practical contribution? Is the contribution specific to an analyzed unit or generalizable? Are the research limitations and suggestions for future studies presented?

9. 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.

10. Reviewer Conclusion


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