{"id":4680,"date":"2024-03-03T00:00:25","date_gmt":"2024-03-02T20:00:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lr.bsulawss.org\/?page_id=4680"},"modified":"2024-03-03T00:04:36","modified_gmt":"2024-03-02T20:04:36","slug":"review-form","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/lr.bsulawss.org\/en\/review-form\/","title":{"rendered":"Review Form"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Reviewer:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Date:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Manuscript Title:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. Does the paper have a clear and well-defined research question or claim?<\/p>\n\n\n\n a) yes<\/p>\n\n\n\n b) no<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. Is the claim novel and previously unexplored in discourse?<\/p>\n\n\n\n a) yes<\/p>\n\n\n\n b) no<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3. Does the paper present a novel approach to the research question? Even if the research question itself is not original, does the author offer a fresh perspective to the established discourse?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n a) yes<\/p>\n\n\n\n b) no<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4. Are the arguments presented in a logically sound and well-reasoned manner?<\/p>\n\n\n\n a) yes<\/p>\n\n\n\n b) average<\/p>\n\n\n\n c) no<\/p>\n\n\n\n 5. Does the paper engage in critical analysis?<\/p>\n\n\n\n a) yes<\/p>\n\n\n\n b) average<\/p>\n\n\n\n c) no<\/p>\n\n\n\n 6. Does the paper examine the legal problem in thorough and comprehensive manner?<\/p>\n\n\n\n a) yes<\/p>\n\n\n\n b) average<\/p>\n\n\n\n c) no<\/p>\n\n\n\n 7. Does the paper offer practicable recommendations? Are the recommendations in accordance with legal practice and theory?<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n a) yes<\/p>\n\n\n\n b) no<\/p>\n\n\n\n 8. Does the paper have the potential to influence future legal scholarship or developments?<\/p>\n\n\n\n a) yes<\/p>\n\n\n\n b) no<\/p>\n\n\n\n 9. Is the methodology used to arrive at the findings sound and appropriate for the research question?<\/p>\n\n\n\n a) yes<\/p>\n\n\n\n b) average<\/p>\n\n\n\n c) no<\/p>\n\n\n\n 10. Is the paper well-written and well-structured?<\/p>\n\n\n\n a) yes<\/p>\n\n\n\n b) average<\/p>\n\n\n\n c) no<\/p>\n\n\n\n 11. Suggest your recommendation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n a) the paper can be accepted for publication as is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n b) the paper can be accepted for publication with revisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n c) the paper can be rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 12. Please provide any additional comments or suggestions for the author(s) and\/or Editor-in-Chief:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Reviewer: Date: Manuscript Title: I. Substantive and Technical Evaluation of the Paper 1. Does the paper have a clear and well-defined research question or claim? a) yes b) no 2….<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":2529,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_editorskit_title_hidden":false,"_editorskit_reading_time":0,"_editorskit_is_block_options_detached":false,"_editorskit_block_options_position":"{}"},"coauthors":[198],"yoast_head":"\nI. Substantive and Technical Evaluation of the Paper<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
II. Overall Recommendation<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
III. Additional Comments<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n