Guiding principle
The review must be formative, providing sufficient and well-reasoned arguments about which aspects could be improved. In favourable reviews with reservations or unfavourable reviews, deficiencies must be identified precisely to help authors both in improving the current submission and in preparing future manuscripts.

Review criteria

Each criterion includes a qualitative assessment (text) and a score from 1 to 5 (visible only to the editorial team).

1
Title and abstract
Required
Assess whether the title, abstract and keywords accurately describe the content of the article. If not, identify the aspects that could be improved.
Descriptive accuracy Keywords Title–content coherence
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
2
Relevance, originality and literature review
Required
Assess the interest, relevance and timeliness of the research topic in the light of international research trends. Evaluate the originality, the contribution to existing knowledge, and the breadth, depth and currency of the literature review.
Interest and timeliness Originality State of the art Fit with the TS
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
3
Structure, organisation, argumentation and writing
Required
Assess whether the manuscript follows the required structure (IMRYD or IMDC), whether the organisation is coherent, whether the argumentation is sound, and whether the writing is correct, clear, precise and free of grammatical errors.
IMRYD / IMDC structure Coherence Argumentation Language quality
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
4
Methodology
Required
Assess methodological rigour: the epistemological approach, the research design (object, objectives, questions, hypotheses), the data collection and analysis instruments, and the level of detail enabling the reader to understand the procedure followed. The specificities of quantitative, qualitative and theoretical research are taken into account.
Epistemological rigour Research design Instruments Replicability
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
5
Results, discussion and conclusions
Required
Assess the findings obtained, whether the discussion interprets the results in contrast with the reviewed literature and the research data, and whether the conclusions clearly indicate the advancement they represent for the field of study.
Clear findings Contrasted discussion Conclusions Advancement of knowledge
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
6

Final publication recommendation

The reviewer issues their editorial recommendation

✓
Accept
Publishable as is
↻
Minor revision
Minor changes needed
⟳
Major revision
Substantive changes needed
✕
Reject
Not publishable
Σ

Overall score

Final numerical score integrating the 5 dimensions. Used by the editorial team to rank publication priority. Visible only to the editorial team.