Recommendations to the Reviewers

We would be grateful if you could evaluate the article submitted for publication in JFMO, according to the criteria given below, paying attention to the sub-criteria, then give an overall assessment by the following.

 1- Preliminary considerations

 - The Editorial Board would appreciate being informed in good time if you are able to complete the review within three weeks of receipt of the manuscript.

- Confidentiality: the policy of the Journal is not to transmit the identity of the reviewers to the authors. We ask you not to publish the article in reading and not to mention your quality of reviewer in any context whatsoever.

 2- Evaluation criteria: (1 is insufficient, 5 is excellent)

Relevance (1-5):

- Does the article contribute to enrich the field in which it fits ?

Clarity (1-5) :

- Is the scientific content clearly presented ?

- Are the conclusions presented the logical consequences of the developments that precede them ?

- Is the organization of the article (order and size of the parts) satisfactory ?

- Is the technical quality satisfactory (figures, graphs, readability, clarity) ?

- Are the title, summary and keywords adequate ?

Methodology (1-5) :

- Does the article present technical or methodological inaccuracies ?

- Are the methods sufficiently detailed so that the results presented can be reproduced ?

- Is the work meaningful ?

- Are the proposed tools evaluated on samples of significant size ?

- Bibliography: Is it sufficient? Is it relevant ?

Originality (1-5) :

- Is the approach new ?

- Does the article provide an original scientific contribution ?

 At the end of the evaluation, please write detailed comments to help the review committee make the final decision. These comments are particularly important during the first proofreading since they will help the authors to improve the quality of their article for a possible second reading.

Please avoid making comments to the author suggesting that your recommendation to reject or accept the article will be followed by the editorial board since the final decision depends on various factors, especially other re-readings. Your comments and recommendations will be written as follows :

 Comments to the authors (will be seen by the authors and the editorial board) :

(Be constructive so that authors can improve their submission)

 -------------------------------------------------- ---------

 Comments to the Editorial Board (will not be seen by the authors) :

 -------------------------------------------------- ---------

 General recommendations during the first review

 4: Accept submission: the article can be published as is.

 3: Minor Revisions: The article is acceptable but requires minor changes suggested in the "Comments to Authors" section. The author will have to send back a revised version for evaluation.

 2: Major Revisions: The article requires significant revisions suggested in the "Comments to Authors" section before a decision can be made. The author will have to send back a revised version for evaluation.

 1: Refuse the submission : the article cannot be accepted for publication in JFMO.

 -------------------------------------------------- --------

 During the second review, do not delete your first review comments, add your second review comments after a separator line.

 Final recommendation during the second review

 1: Accept the submission

2: Refuse the submission

-------------------------------------------------- ---------


JSN Solid is designed by