Navigation – Plan du site

ASp Reviewer’s form

Editorial committee

Reviewer
Reviewer code:
Manuscript code:
Manuscript title:
Number of words:
Category requested by MSS author:

Please rate the quality of the article
o Superior
o Very good
o Good
o Acceptable, but significant issues noted
o Poor
o Very poor
o Difficult to assess

Section 1. Reviewer’s recommendations

O Publishable

  • as is

  • after minor revisions

  • after substantial editing by the author (not requiring resubmission)

O Revise and resubmit
O
 Reject

Section 2. Relevance and scope

2.1. Category of manuscript

O Original article
O
 Review article
O
 Short research note
O
 Report on teaching-related issues
O
 Comment
O
 Book review
O
 Other:
O
 Category ill-defined

2.2. Type of data under study (multiple answers are possible)

O Texts
O
 Fiction (novels, movies, TV series…)
O
 Multimedia (websites, computer games…)
O
 Cultural features
O
 Domain characterization
O
 Teaching / learning situation
O
 Epistemology (theories or concepts, methodological tools, etc.)
O
 Other:
O
 Ill-defined

2.3. Epistemological framework of study (multiple answers are possible)

O Discourse (discourse analysis, study of genres, pragmatics)
O
 Specialized translation
O
 Grammatical features
O
 Terminology
O
 Corpus and phraseology studies
O
 Culture and/or civilization studies
O
 Didactics (theories of learning, teaching, training projects, ergonomics, teaching applications, computer-assisted language learning, distance learning...)
O
 Other:
O
 Ill-defined

2.4. Relevance to English for Specific Purposes (ESP)

O Relevant to ESP

  • fully

  • partly

  • indirectly

O Not within the traditional scope of ESP, but relevance is well-argued
O
 Not within the scope of ESP

Section 3. Scientific value

3.1. Significance of the contribution

O High-value contribution (breaks new ground in theory, epistemology, methodology, etc.)
O Significant contribution (provides new interpretations and/or applications of existing knowledge)
O
 Minor contribution
O
 Negligible contribution
O
 Significance is difficult to assess from the current version of the manuscript

3.2. Author’s knowledge of ESP research on similar issues (key previous studies, key concepts and methods)

High: specialist knowledge
O
 Good, but some aspects have been overlooked
O
 Some significant gaps
O
 Poor: lack of relevant knowledge seriously undermines the author’s objectives
O
 Other comments:

3.3. Methodology

O Superior: highly elaborate and very sound methods
O
 Rigorous
O
 Acceptable
O
 Acceptable, but has some serious flaws
O
 Poor
O
 Very poor
O
 Not acceptable, because the author does not provide any information on methods
O
 Other:

3.4. Amount and management of supporting evidence

O Very ample & excellently managed supporting evidence
O
 Strong supporting evidence, good management
O
 Supporting evidence needs improvement
O
 Supporting evidence is scarce

Section 4. Textual features

4.1. Length of the manuscript

O Appropriate
O
 Inappropriate

  • Too long

  • Too brief

  • Other:

4.2. Title

O Appropriate: clearly describes the content
O
 Inappropriate

  • Not clear

  • Does not reflect the content

  • Other:

4.3. Key words

O Appropriate
O
 Inappropriate

  • Too many

  • Improperly chosen

  • Too vague (e.g. “translation” is too vague)

  • Too specific (e.g. “translation of U.S. Supreme Court decisions” is too specific)

  • Inappropriate for other reasons:

(If applicable) Reviewer’s suggestions for new keywords (give keywords that need to be changed, e.g. “translation”  “legal translation”):

4.4a. Abstract in the language of the article

O Appropriate
O
 Inappropriate

  • Does not summarize the content

  • Too long

  • Too short

  • Problems with style

  • Other issues:

4.4b. Abstract in the other language

O Appropriate
O
 Inappropriate, to rewrite

  • Does not summarize the content

  • Too long

  • Too short

  • Problems with style

  • Other issues:

4.5. References

O Appropriate
O
  Inappropriate, should be revised

  • Inaccurate (errors, references omitted, etc.)

  • Insufficient (important or key work on the topic is missing)

  • References cited in the bibliography but not used in the article

  • Author does not comply with journal’s format for references

  • Other issues:

4.6. Appendices (if relevant)

O Appropriate
O
 Inappropriate

  • Too long, irrelevant, unnecessary

  • Content should be included in main text

  • Problems with presentation or sources

  • Other issues:

Section 5. Style

5.1. General features (clarity, text cohesion, readability)

O Excellent
O
 Good
O
 Average, but some passages are unclear
O
 Poor: several passages are unclear
O
 Very poor: difficult to understand
O
 Other issues:

5.2. Organization

O Appropriate
O
 Inappropriate

  • Lacks logical cohesion

  • Inadequate / irrelevant / unclear introduction

  • Imbalance between the different sections

  • Insufficient links between sections

  • Inadequate / irrelevant / unclear conclusion

  • Other issues:

5.3. Terminology (concepts, technical terms)

O Appropriate
O
 Inaccurate, ambiguous, inconsistent
O
 Contains serious mistakes
O
 Other issues:

5.4. Syntax and spelling

O Appropriate
O
 Occasional errors
O Large number of errors
O
 Very large number of errors
O
 Other issues:

5.5. Miscellaneous

O Punctuation errors
O
 Capitalization errors
O
 Improperly formatted quotations
O
 Improperly formatted numerical data
O
 Other issues:

Section 6. Comments

Section 7. Suggestions for editing the article

  • Logo GERAS -Groupe d'Etude et de Recherches en Anglais de Spécialité
  • Revues.org