For Evaluators

Dear evaluator, thank you for agreeing to collaborate with Per Musi. By agreeing to carry out this evaluation, you confirm that you hold a PhD and have expertise in the topic to be evaluated.

Per Musi, in line with the guidelines of the Open Science movement, has practiced open evaluation since 2023, where authors and evaluators are identified in order to establish a dialectical and constructive evaluation process.

It is important that the reviewer is familiar with the journal, so please read the links 'About the journal' and 'Submissions'.

When filling in the evaluation form (with criteria from 1 to 5, where 1 is not relevant at all and 5 is extremely relevant), we also ask you to pay attention to the following evaluation criteria:

Pay attention to text editing (according to the Template);
Pay attention to the rules on citations, insertion of figures and tables and bibliographical references (according to the Template);
Its precepts are respected:

As a scientific article: Introduction, Problem and Theoretical Basis, Objectives, Methodology, Results Achieved, Final Considerations and Bibliographical References.
As a book review: information on the publisher and catalog, up-to-date publication values, information on how to access the publication, introduction, critical reflection on the text, final considerations and bibliographical references.
As a score: Introduction, brief biography of the composer and originality of the work.
As an interview: Introduction, brief biography of the interviewee with photo, inclusion of the interviewee as co-author.

The verdict options are:

Approved
Approved with Mandatory Corrections
Fail
Resubmit for evaluation

We ask the reviewer to comment, even briefly, on the work being reviewed (even when it has been approved without restrictions). This allows for a permanent constructive dialog about the ideas discussed and gives the author and the journal confidence in the evaluation.

Reviews without comments will not be considered.