Evaluation form for the articles that are received by "Juridical Tribune - Review of Comparative and International Law"
* This form is filled only by scientific reviewers of the journal at the request of the Editor in chief
Email *
Title of reviewed article
 *
First and last name of the reviewer
 *
EVALUATION
In the conducting of the evaluation, the reviewers will consider the provisions of:
- the Authors Guide (http://tribunajuridica.eu/ghidul-autorilor_en.html)
- the Ethics and Malpractice Statement for Juridical Tribune - Review of Comparative and International Law (http://tribunajuridica.eu/declaration.pdf)
- COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers published by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) - https://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf
1. The subject of the scientific paper is suitable for publication in the Juridical Tribune Journal?
 *
If your answer is „Moderately so” or NO, please explain:
2. The title clearly describes the content of the article?
 *
If your answer is „Require modification” or NO, please explain:
3. The Abstract describes the objectives, results and implications of the study?
 *
If your answer is NO, please explain:
4. The introductory section includes: identifying the problem investigated, novelty compared to existing doctrinal approaches, research structure and detailing research methods used?
 *
If your answer is NO, please explain:
5. The article meets the technical requirements drafting provided by the Authors Guide? The Author Guide can be found here: http://tribunajuridica.eu/ghidul-autorilor_en.html .
 *
If your answer is NO, please explain:
6. How would you describe the writing style?
 *
7. How would you assess the coherence and clarity of expression?
 *
8. How do you evaluate the scientific novelty of the article? 
 *
9. The research methods used by the author are appropriate for a scientific paper in the legal field?
 *
10. The article demonstrates a reasonable knowledge of the relevant literature in the field?
 *
If the answer is NO indicate the important works (books, articles) that were omitted by the author.
11. Are the terms and concepts adequately defined?
 *
If your answer is „Not always” or NO, please explain:
12. Are the scientific arguments sustained in a logical way?
 *
If your answer is „Not always” or NO, please explain:
13. The article represents an original contribution with impact on the development of scientific theory?
 *
If your answer is NO, please explain:
14. Section of conclusions includes research results and ways to exploitation of the results?
 *
If your answer is „Needs improvement” or NO, please explain:
15. Citations of bibliographical sources in footnotes observe the Authors Guide? The Author Guide can be found here: http://tribunajuridica.eu/ghidul-autorilor_en.html 
 *
If your answer is NO, please explain:
16. The reference works cited in article are mentioned in the Bibliography section as indicated in the Authors Guide? The Author Guide can be found here: http://tribunajuridica.eu/ghidul-autorilor_en.html 
 *
If your answer is NO, please explain:
EVALUATION RESULT
After evaluation, I recommend:
 *
Comments to the author
 *
Reviewer Confidential Comments to Editor
Ethical aspects 
Reviewers should call to the Editor in chief attention any major resemblances between a manuscript under consideration and other published articles or papers of which they are aware, as well as any concerns they might have in relation to the ethical acceptability of the research reported in the manuscript.
A copy of your responses will be emailed to .
Submit
Clear form
Never submit passwords through Google Forms.
This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Report Abuse - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Google Forms