General instructions


Before starting the review, please pay attention to the following few lines.


The review is double blind. The editorial board of the journal doesn’t purvey names of the authors
of reviewed essays to the reviewers and the review form is sent to the authors without the name of
the reviewer. The editorial board neither purveys the names of the referees to other persons.


The primary objective of the review is to improve and objectify the decision of the editorial board
about accepting the manuscript. The editorial board will provide an anonymous version of the review
form to the authors. Extended comments, together with encouraging and constructive criticism
concerning possible improvements of the manuscript (in part II) are helpful to both the editors and
the authors, and are highly welcomed.


All accepted papers will undergo language editing. Incorrect grammar or style could be the reason
for rejecting the paper though its content meets the criterion of a scientific journal.


We are continually widening the list of our referees in order to be able to ensure specialists in
the field. If you choose to cooperate in the review process in the future, please provide us with a
contact e-mail and the main areas of your specialization.


Contact email ……………………………………………………

Specialization …………………………………………………...




Please, send the review in an electronic form to nho@econ.muni.cz and in printed version with a
hand signature to the address of editorial office:


Review of Economic Perspectives

Faculty of Economics and Administration MU

Lipová 41a

602 00 Brno

Czech Republic



The payment of the arranged reward for the review will be made on the basis of a separate
agreement.



                                            Review form



Title of the reviewed essay (article entitled): please fill in

Name and correspondent address of the reviewer: please fill in



Part I. – Please answer the following questions


                                           Agree wholly

                                   Agree with minor reservation

                                   Agree with major reservation

                                             Disagree

1)    The essay an original piece of scientific work or a surveyed scientific essay not stemming
from original research.

2)    The title is in accordance to the contents?

3)    The essay states clearly its objective and what is achieved.

4)    The essay use appropriate method(s).

5)    The essay is free from factual or interpretation mistakes, errors in mathematics or in data
processing.

6)    The essay is free from irrelevant or redundant material (text/figures/tables).

7)    The references are sufficient, appropriate and free from obvious omissions.

8)    The abstract adequately summarize the paper.


Part II. – Written assessment (please write at least 1500 characters).


Please provide a written assessment. If important, elaborate in more detail your opinions
concerning your answers from Part I.


Please note that extended comments together with encouraging and constructive criticism concerning
possible improvements of the manuscript are helpful to both the editors and the authors, and are
highly appreciated.



Part III. – Conclusive assessment and recommendation to the editorial board.


According to your opinion, please propose:


A)   to accept the essay as it is (in this assessed version)

B)   to accept the essay after minor revision

C)   to accept the essay after major revision and re-review

D)   not to accept the essay


In case of C (i.e. if the manuscript is to be revised), should the new version be returned to you
for a new assessment? (Y/N)