Evaluation Form

1. Recommendation Form to the Editorial Committee: The reviewer must choose one of the following options:

• Accepted for publication: No revisions required before publication.
• Accepted with observations: The author must implement the suggested corrections before proceeding with publication.
• Currently not admissible: Rejection is recommended due to the need for major revisions, without guaranteeing future acceptance.
• Rejected: The manuscript does not meet the minimum standards or is outside the scope of the journal.

2. Evaluation Criteria (specific questions): The form includes six key questions, evaluated on a scale from "Totally agree" to "Totally disagree." The criteria are:

• Relevance to the scope and focus of the journal or specific dossier.
• Originality and relevance of the manuscript in the field of study.
• Clarity in introducing the central problem.
• Adequate treatment of the work's objectives.
• Sufficient argumentation to justify the conclusions.
• Up-to-date and correct referencing of bibliographic sources.

3. Open Comments to the Author:

• In an open text box, the reviewer should detail the reasons for their decision and suggest specific corrections.
• These comments will be sent to the authors as part of the feedback process.

4. Private Comments to the Editor (optional):

• In an additional space, the reviewer may provide exclusive information or suggestions for the editor, which will not be shared with the authors.

5. Attached Documents:

• The reviewer can attach files with comments and direct corrections on the manuscript. These must adhere to anonymity rules to prevent revealing the reviewer’s identity.

6. Review Deadlines:

• The reviewer must complete the evaluation within the established deadline, usually 20 days. If more time is needed, the reviewer must notify the editor in advance.

This format ensures a rigorous and transparent process, promoting academic quality and ethical development in the publications of Revista Culturas Científicas.