REVIEWER EVALUATION FORM

1. Is the topic scientifically relevant considering the journal profile?*

•  Yes
•  No

2. Is the topic scientifically relevant and useful?*

•  Yes
•  No

3. The article's title reflects the content and purpose of the article.*

•  Yes
•  No

4. The abstract is concise and relevant (up to 150-250 words).*

•  Yes
•  No

5. The key words provide adequate index entry for the article (up to 8 words).*

•  Yes
•  No

6. Is the scientific argument logical and persuasive? The analysis of recent research and publications includes references to scientific publications from the last 3-5 years.*

•  Yes
•  No

7. Are the methods used for research and data processing sufficiently described?*

•  Yes
•  No

8. Is information provided on the compliance of the article materials with bioethical standards regarding examinations/research/treatment (bioethics commission protocol number)?*

•  Yes
•  No

9. Are the empirical research results methodologically correctly presented?*

•  Yes
•  No

11. Conclusions illustrate the research results, findings and recommendations showing what is new and giving suggestions for future research.*

•  Yes
•  No

11. Conclusions illustrate the research results, findings and recommendations showing what is new and giving suggestions for future research.*

•  Yes
•  No

12. Should some parts of the article be shortened, deleted, extended or refined?*

•  Yes
•  No

13. Is the article in compliance with the Instructions for authors? *

•  Yes
•  No

14. The references are full and grounded?*

•  Yes
•  No

15. Recommendation for the editor (circle one):*

•  - recommend to publish with no changes;
•  - accept conditionally with changes suggested;
•  - reject article for non-compliances.

16. Reviewer’s additional opinions, remarks and recommendations*