Please fill out

You have reviewed the following manuscript:

Title:

Normal scientific criteria

Please evaluate the book or chapter according to listed criteria.

Evaluation	Question
	Mastery of language
	Style and presentation
	Coherence of arguments
	Amount of references and discussion of previous work
	Quality of illustrations
	Readability

Evaluation	Question
	How well does the manuscript describe the history of its main subject area? Is it comprehensive, yet short and concise?
	How well does the manuscript include the 'academic landscape' of its main subject area. Does it explain the term's relation to related topics/terms?
	How good are the suggestions for further reading and pointers on how to learn more?
	How well does it strike a balance between writing in a impartial tone but still letting the voice and standpoint of the author be heard? I.e. the book should not be a mere listing of facts (a 'wikipedia' approach), nor a regular research article.

In the box below, please provide constructive comments/suggestions as to how the author may make his/her chapter even better! For example:

How could the manuscript become easier to understand?
Do you have suggestions for better concrete examples?
How could the text get a better ‘flow'?
Do you have better suggestions for instructing readers on where and how to learn more?
Which sentences should be rephrased
Is it lengthy enough?
Do you know of any better references that should be mentioned (literature on how and by whom the term has been researched)?
How could the manuscript become even more valuable to our readers?

Will be sent anonymously to the author

Place indicate your recommendation for acceptance:

		Accept (with optional revision) The manuscript can be accepted as it is; the author is expected to make minor revisions according to reviewer and editor viewpoints. Comments on your recommendation: Will be sent anonymously to the author

		Develop – minor revisions The manuscript cannot be accepted as it is, but is a clear candidate for acceptance. Only minor revisions are needed. Comments on your recommendation: Will be sent anonymously to the author

		Develop – major revisions The manuscript cannot be accepted as it is, but it is worthwhile starting an editorial process to improve the manuscript. If you have marked the manuscript as worthwhile developing (requiring major revisions), the editors will initiate an improvement process involving the author, a chief editor, and a member from the editorial board. Please indicate the points where you see a need for improvement. Your comments will be read by the people responsible for the development process. In which areas does the manuscript need development? Will be sent anonymously to the author If the reviewed chapter needs a major revision, can you help improve it?

		Reject The manuscript cannot be accepted as it is, and it is not worthwhile starting an editorial process. Please indicate your main reasons for rejection. Try to be constructive. What are the problems with the manuscript? What may be done to overcome the problems? Will be sent anonymously to the author

Your name (the reviewer):

The review is blinded, your identity is only known to the Peer Review Board

Your email:

The review is blinded, your identity is only known to the Peer Review Board