Axis Mundi Peer-review form

Reviewed text:
Reviewer (surname, first name, title):

1. Does the text meet the requirements for scientific work?
    a) yes
    b) contains minor deficiencies
    c) contains major deficiencies
    d) does not
 
2. Is the objective of the text clearly defined?
    a) yes
    b) no
    c) is disputed
 
3. The originality of the selected topic and its processing is:
The topic is original
    a) the author formulates an original topic
    b) the topic is treated in an original way
The topic is not original
    c) the text is beneficial in mapping the current topic
    d) there is no obvious contribution of the authors to the topic
 
4. Processing methods are:
    a) new
    b) routine
    c) inappropriate
 
5. The structure of the contribution is:
    a) appropriate
    b) requires minor modification
    c) requires major modification
    d) unsuitable
 
6. The title of the paper is:
    a) concise
    b) requires minor modification
    c) requires major modification
    d) inadequate
 
7. Use of relevant literature:
    a) the most recent relevant literature is used
    b) some important generally accessible work related to the problem has not been used
    c) the relevant literature is largely not used
 
8. The language and stylistic level is:
    a) very good
    b) sufficient
    c) insufficient
 
9. Literature is cited:
    a) correctly
    b) requires modification
    c) incorrect
 
10. Abstract is:
    a) concise
    b) requires minor modification
    c) requires major modification
    d) inadequate
 
11. Keywords are:
    a) concise
    b) requires minor modification
    c) requires major modification
    d) inadequate
 
12. The level of the graphic attachments is:
    a) appropriate
    b) requires minor modification
    c) requires major modification
    d) inadequate
 
Overall assessment of the reviewed text:
    a) I recommend publishing
    b) I recommend publishing with minor modifications
    c) I recommend publishing only after substantial modifications
    d) I do not recommend publishing

Commentary (optional):

Date:

reviewer's signature