Guide for Referees

Before submission of an article for Double-Blind peer review, the Editor of Maskana checks that a manuscript meets the minimum requirements described in the guide for authors. In this way, Reviewers can focus on the evaluation of the following 10 simple rules:

1. Degree of originality of the research presented and the article. According to your knowledge, is the material / article submitted for the evaluation original, or is it a copy of an article already published? Normally, and before the external review process begins, the articles received for the regular edition of this journal are reviewed using Urkund (software available to all members of the university academic community). A no less effective alternate tool to verify acts of plagiarism is the use of powerful search engines such as Google Chrome. 

2. Does the document (e.g., in the Introduction) offer a correct and complete review of recent literature related to the topic? 

3. The manuscript makes a correct revision of the literature, which allows to base the study adequately, especially when describing the background, the approach of the problem and the justification of the work. 

4. Are the objectives, hypotheses or questions in line with the research? 

5. It is very important to evaluate if the article brings new knowledge. 

6. In relation to the Materials and Methods section, verify if: the type and scope of the investigation are correctly defined; that the sample in the study is representative; the study variables are well selected and complete; the methods, techniques and procedures are thoroughly explained and properly applied to the research process; the most appropriate statistical technique is applied. In the case that the treatment of the results is limited to the presentation of frequencies, indicate whether it is advisable or necessary to present or analyze the statistical data. 

7. Verify if the presentation and interpretation of the results is done according to the planned statistical techniques or qualitative research techniques. Evaluate if the presentation of the results in tables / graphs is appropriate, and if it is possible to decrease the number of tables / graphs. 

8. In the discussion section, which is the most relevant section of an article, it is important to verify if the results show: if the author / authors confront their results with the results published by other authors in recent international journals; if the author / authors analyze why the results obtained are different from the published research results; if the study makes scientific contributions. It is important to verify if within the discussion the author / authors specify the opportunity and relevance of the article in their area of ​​research. 

9. Verify if the conclusions are coherent with the objectives, hypothesis or directing questions, and are in line with the manuscript. It is important that the conclusions are written in a clear, precise, concise and impersonal manner. 

10. It is necessary to cite at least 20 sources of recent scientific articles - last ten years.

Once these ten criteria have been evaluated, the Reviewer should prepare a summary report (usually around one page) in which he will highlight the most relevant aspects that deserve attention. In addition, the Reviewer must provide a verdict that will be taken into account by the Editor when making a decision on the manuscript publication. The aforementioned verdict could be: (a) accepted with minor changes, (b) major changes prior to acceptance, and (c) rejected.