Review
This page is hosted for free by zzz.com.ua, if you are owner of this page, you can remove this message and gain access to many additional features by upgrading your hosting to PRO or VIP for just 32.50 UAH.
Do you want to support owner of this site? Click here and donate to his account some amount, he will be able to use it to pay for any of our services, including removing this ad.

REVIEW

Download the review form for the review form.doc

TITLE OF THE ARTICLE ………………………………………………………………………………….

  1. General value of the article
  2. a) contains substantial scientific novelty
  3. b) makes considerable scientific contribution
  4. c) confirms the current results
  5. d) does not correspond to the journal specification
  6. Methodology of the research
  7. a) corresponds to needs of the article
  8. b) improper presented
  9. c) does not correspond to needs of the article
  10. Initial data
  11. a) sufficient
  12. b) insufficient
  13. Statistical investigation
  14. a) sufficient
  15. b) can be accepted after consideration of reviewer’s remarks
  16. c) insufficient
  17. Illustrations
  18. a) acceptable in quality and quantity
  19. b) quality of the illustration № ………………. is improper
  20. c) can be corrected
  21. d) unacceptable
  22. Tables and figures
  23. a) acceptable
  24. b) need improvement
  25. c) unacceptable or improper
  26. Interpretation of the research results
  27. a) acceptable
  28. b) can be accepted after consideration of reviewer’s remarks
  29. c) unacceptable or not understandable
  30. d) inconclusive
  31. Used literature
  32. a) acceptable in quality and quantity
  33. b) unacceptable because of insufficient number of entries
  34. c) unacceptable because of low quality (old, designed with violation of the requirements, etc.)
  35. d) lack of well-known (classic) sources concerning the article topic
  36. Units of measurement
  37. a) appropriate
  38. b) inappropriate
  39. Summary
  40. a) correct
  41. b) does not (completely) reveal idea of the article
  42. c) needs radical elaboration
  43. Assessment of linguistic aspect of the work
  44. a) good
  45. b) needs improvement
  46. c) needs radical elaboration
  47. General assessment and proposals concerning the article publication
  48. a) very good – can be accepted and published
  49. b) good – can be accepted and published after consideration of reviewer’s remarks
  50. c) can be accepted and published after radical elaboration
  51. d) cannot be published in the “Journal of Lviv National Agrarian University”

COMMENTS of the reviewer ABOUT assessment of the article:

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

 

reviewer’s signature

Scientific degree and academic title, full name of the reviewer