Please rate the paper according to the criteria given on the evaluation sheet on this site; then give an overall score for the paper.
After the evaluation criteira, please input your detailed review of the paper in the Comments part. These comments will help the Editing committee in making their decision. Such coments are also helpful for the authors as they ill help them in improving the quality of the paper if the paper qualifies for the second round of reviews.
Please try to avoid mentioning anything in the comments that would lead the author to believe that your recommendation of acceptance or rejection will be followed, since the final decision is the decision of the Editing committee which depends on other factors, and in particular on the reviews of other papers.
In the case of a second review, do not delete your first comments, add your new comments after a demarcation line.
If you should have any conflict of interest, please report to the editor-in-chief in charge of the issue as soon as possible.
The policy of the journal is single blind reviewing: we do not reveal the identity of the reviewers to the authors.
We require that you do not distribute the article and that you keep the peer-review process confidential at all times.
Thank you!
EVALUATION CRITERIA:
-----------------------------------------------------------
DETAILED SCORES (1 is poor, 5 is excellent):
APPROPRIATENESS (1-5):
* Does the paper fit in the themes of the journal?
CLARITY (1-5):
* Is it clear what was done?
* Are the discussions in the paper clear?
* Is the overall organization of the paper satisfactory (order and size of the sections)? Is the technical quality of the paper satisfactory (figures, graphs, plots, formulas...)?
* Do the title, abstract and keywords provide a clear, accurate indication of the material presented?
CORRECTNESS (1-5):
* Does it appear to be flawed technically or methodologically? Are there enough linguistic examples? Are they detailed?
* How important is the work?
* Are the techniques evaluated on sufficiently large data?
* Are the references complete and accurate?
ORIGINALITY (1-5):
* How novel is the approach? Do you consider the content of the paper of high originality?
------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERALL SCORE (FIRST REVIEWING ROUND)
5 (= Publish unaltered)
4 (= Publish but suggest changes in section "COMMENTS TO AUTHORS")
3 (= Publish but changes in section "FREE COMMENTS" should be mandatory. The paper will undergo a second reviewing process. In this case do you accept to make a review of the revised paper?)
2 (= Reject; encourage author to try a major revision or suggest to submit to another journal. Which one?)
1 (= Reject; do not encourage another submission.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL SCORE (SECOND REVIEWING ROUND)
Publish
Reject
------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS TO AUTHORS (WILL BE SEEN BY AUTHORS AND EDITORIAL BOARD):
(provide comments as detailed and constructive as possible to help the authors improve their paper)
-----------------------------------------------
COMMENTS TO EDITORIAL BOARD (WILL NOT BE SEEN BY AUTHORS):
