Plan
Haut de pageReviewer
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)
O 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: