Manuscript Evaluation Form: Discussion (Pensata)
Article Title
1. Writing*
The writing is clear, objective, and concise. The separation of the text into sections and subsections is pertinent and facilitates the reading process.
2. Timeliness*
The manuscript presents a convincing argument for the assertion that the chosen topic is one that is both novel and cutting-edge.
3. Reasoning*
The bibliography employed by the author(s) is extensive, comprehensive, and seamlessly integrated into the discussion in the manuscript. A balance is established between classic and contemporary references, with a clear and substantial connection between them.
4. Provocation*
The manuscript is able to make the reader think about the problem situation in question.
5. Applicability*
The discussions in the manuscript are useful for generating new ideas and insights that can lead to practical developments and academic research.
6. 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.
7. Reviewer Conclusion*
(Recommendation):
8. In compliance with Open Science, we ask if you (reviewer) agree with the publication of the manuscript evaluation reports, according to the following options:*
