Reviewer's Checklist

1. Does the paper correspond to the journal’s profile?
2. Is the paper closely related to the theme of the volume being prepared?
3. Does the paper’s title clearly and effectively convey the paper’s content?
4. Is the paper organised in a sensible and logical fashion?
5. Is the paper technically correct (appropriate references, citation formats,footnotes, figures, tables and general standards of academic writing )?
6. May the paper be considered novel and original with regard to the information it contains?
7. Do the theses presented in the paper derive from theoretical considerations and empirical analyses carried out?
8. Does the paper require shortening or extension of some of its sections, what would positively affect its reading and informative value?
9. Are the references to the literature in the subject matter adequate and justified?
10. May the paper be recognised as a scientific study (includes theses, critically develops and summarizes them), or is it more of a research report (mainly presentation of data)?
11. Reviewer recommendation: Is the paper suitable for publication in the journal’s volume?
1. Yes, accept as is.
2. Yes, with minor revisions.
3. Yes, with major revisions.
4. No, it is not suitable for publication because it:
1. does not correspond to the journal’s profile.
2. does not correspond to the theme of the volume prepared.
3. does not meet formal requirements and the standards of academic writing.
4. contains methodological errors.
5. other reasons.