illustration Evaluation criteria

Evaluation criteria

Two modes of evaluation are possible in view of a publication on EspacesTemps.net: peer-review evaluation and internal evaluation by the Editorial Committee.

Scientific articles.

Such articles are evaluated according to the peer-review model, i.e., anonymously by two external reviewers who write down their evaluation according to a grid of criterions provided by the Editorial Board (see below). Every article is then sent to a member of the Board, who forwards to its author a compilation of the reviewers’ comments, including quotations from their evaluation reports.

Image1These articles, which may appear under various headings, are highlighted by a distinctive visual sign (porcupine logo, as pictured hereby) which guarantees that they have been peer-reviewed according to international norms.

Internal evaluation.

The same rules apply to all other articles, with one variation: they are evaluated internally by the Editorial Board of EspacesTemps.net.

Evaluation criterions.

Here are the main questions that serve as guidelines for the reviewers in their analysis of the articles:

Is the contribution to knowledge significant?
Is the interdisciplinary perspective highlighted by this article? Is readability guaranteed, notably for readers unfamiliar to the field?
Is the argumentation rigorous and convincing?
Is the empirical grounding correct?
Is previous knowledge of the object of study mastered to satisfaction?
Is the textual structure (layout, logical bindings) coherent?
Is the language (style, syntax) acceptable?
Do the illustrations contribute effectively to the argumentative development? (Illustrations: tables, graphs, maps, photos, drawings.)

The reviewers must give a brief appreciation and select one of the following options:

A May be published as is.
B May be published subject to certain modifications (to be specified and argued).
C May be published subject to heavy rewriting (to be specified and argued).
D May not be published (to be argued).