- 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 relation between the size and the content 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D May not be published (to be argued).