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, methodological deficiencies must be identified precisely to help authors both in improving the current submission and in preparing future manuscripts.
⚠ Specialised SLR review
This manuscript is a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and requires specialised evaluation. Please verify in particular:
Rigorous compliance with the declared protocol (PRISMA 2020, SALSA, ProKnow-C, Methodi Ordinatio)
Correct separation between background literature and analytical corpus
Replicable methodology with at least two independent reviewers
Data available in an open repository
Explicit organisational framework (TCCM, ADO, PICO, etc.)
No mixing of supporting references with the analytical corpus

Review criteria for SLR

Each criterion includes a qualitative assessment (text) and a score from 1 to 5 (visible only to the editorial team). Highlighted boxes indicate SLR-specific checks.

1
Title and abstract
Required
Assess whether the title, abstract and keywords accurately describe the content of the systematic review.
SLR-specific: Verify that the title clearly identifies the type of review (systematic, bibliometric, etc.), that the abstract follows the PRISMA structure / declared protocol, and that the keywords include relevant methodological terms.
Review type identified PRISMA abstract Methodological keywords
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
2
Relevance, originality and justification of the SLR
Required
Assess the interest, relevance and timeliness of the review topic, considering international research trends in communication and emerging technologies.
SLR-specific: Verify that there is a clear justification for why a new systematic review is necessary, what knowledge gap it addresses, and that no literature synthesis is anticipated in the introduction (this should appear in the results).
Gap justification No premature synthesis Need for the SLR Fit with the TS
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
3
Structure, organisation and organisational framework
Required
Assess whether the manuscript has the appropriate structure for an SLR, with a concise introduction, detailed methodology, structured results and clear discussion.
SLR-specific: Verify that an explicit organisational framework exists (TCCM, ADO, PICO, etc.), that the introduction does not exceed a few conceptual paragraphs, and that the results are organised according to the chosen framework.
Explicit framework Concise introduction Organised results Structural coherence
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
4
Methodological rigour of the SLR protocol
Required
Assess strict compliance with the declared protocol (PRISMA 2020, SALSA, ProKnow-C, Methodi Ordinatio).
Required elements: Replicable search strategies · Explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria · Selection process with at least two independent reviewers · Completed protocol checklist · Selection flow diagram included · Data deposited in an open repository.
Declared protocol Replicable search Two reviewers Flow diagram Data in repository
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
5
Reference separation and corpus management
Required
Assess whether references are correctly separated between background literature (traditional reference list) and analytical corpus (supplementary material/repository).
Verify: That the two types of references are not mixed · That corpus citations use unique identifiers [ID001] · That studies with dual use are marked with an asterisk (*) · That data are accessible in accordance with PRISMA item 27.
Correct separation [IDxxx] identifiers Dual use with asterisk Accessible data
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
6
Synthesis of results and conclusions
Required
Assess the results organised according to the chosen framework, with a structured synthesis of the evidence, clear identification of gaps and contradictions, and conclusions that address the stated research questions.
SLR-specific: Verify that the synthesis is not merely descriptive but analytical, and that clear directions for future research are proposed.
Analytical synthesis Gaps identified Aligned conclusions Future research
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
7

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 6 dimensions. Used by the editorial team to rank publication priority. Visible only to the editorial team.