• Contribuciones del autor y relevancia en el campo , excelente en habilidades de redacción técnica y calidad del diseño del estudio
• Brinda información sobre un tema importante, por ejemplo , al explicar una amplia variación cuando los números se alejan de la media o el valor esperado, o al arrojar luz sobre un problema sin resolver que afecta a muchas personas.
• La información es útil para las personas que toman decisiones , particularmente decisiones organizacionales a largo plazo o, en nuestro campo particular, decisiones familiares.
• La información se utiliza para desarrollar un nuevo marco o una nueva teoría o el avance de uno existente
• La percepción estimula preguntas nuevas e importantes
• Los métodos utilizados para explorar el tema son apropiados (por ejemplo, recopilación e interpretación de datos)
• Los métodos utilizados se aplican rigurosamente y explican por qué y cómo los datos respaldan las conclusiones.
• Interconectando el trabajo previo en el campo relevante o desde campos interdisciplinarios se hacen más claras las interpretaciones del artículo.
El artículo cuenta una buena historia: bien escrito y fácil de entender, los argumentos son lógicos y no contradictorios internamente
• Does not fall within the Aims and Scope: This is a common mistake. The emphasis of the manuscript is not in the scope of the journal and/or the guidelines of the targeted journal are not followed.
• Fails the technical screening (Poor English grammar, style, and syntax): The article contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized. The article is currently under review process at another journal. The manuscript is not complete; it may be lacking key elements such as the title, authors, affiliations, keywords, main text, references and all tables and figures. The English is not proficient for the peer review process; the figures are not complete or are not clear enough to read. References are incomplete or very old.
• Insufficient/Incomplete data: It is important to clearly define and appropriately frame the studys question. The article contains observations but is not a full study. It discusses findings in relation to some of the work in the field but ignores other important work.
• Methods/Analysis data is seen to be defective: Details are insufficient to repeat the results. The design of study, instruments used, and procedures followed should clear. But in some cases it could be better to put too much information into the methods section rather than to put too little. The analysis is not statistically valid or does not follow the norms of the field.
• Over interpretation of results: Some reviewers have indicated that a clear and honest approach to the interpretation of the results is likely to increase the chances of a manuscript to be accepted. Identify possible partial and stunning variables, both during the preliminary phase of the study and the elucidation of the results. Describe the experimental results briefly.
• Incomprehensible/Unsatisfactory data: Make tables and graphs easy to understand. Some editors start looking quickly at the tables, graphs, and figures to determine if the manuscript is worth considering. The language, structure, or figures are very poor that the merit can't be analyzed. Have a native English speaker to read and assess the quality of the paper.
• Conclusions not supported by data: Make sure your conclusions are not overemphasize, are supported, and answer the studys query. Make sure to contribute alternative clarification, and do not simply restate the results. The conclusions should not ignore large portions of the literature.
• Simply a small extension of a different paper, inaccurate literature: Be sure to conduct a complete literature search and only list references relevant to the study. Findings are incremental and do not advance the field. The work is clearly but larger part of a study is chopped to make possible number of articles.
• El autor no está dispuesto a revisar el manuscrito para abordar las sugerencias de los revisores: teniendo en cuenta las sugerencias de los revisores, revisar su manuscrito siempre resultará en un mejor manuscrito para su publicación. Si el editor sugiere evaluar una revisión, significa que el manuscrito puede publicarse si las inquietudes de los revisores se pueden abordar satisfactoriamente.