Review Forms

Vista has two review forms depending on the type of work. 

Review form (articles) 

  1. The overall quality of the article is: *
  • Outstanding (must be published) 
  • Very good (must be published) 
  • Suitable 
  • Unsuitable 
  1. The article requires revision: *
  • Minor 
  • Considerable 
  • Major 
  1. The relevance of the article to the scope of the journal is: *
  • Excellent 
  • Very good 
  • Good 
  • Suitable 
  • Poor 
  • Very poor 
  1. For its originality and theoretical and empirical or both contributions to the field of Visual Culture, this article is: *
  • Excellent 
  • Very good 
  • Good 
  • Suitable 
  • Poor 
  • Very poor 
  1. The article's description of the reasons behind the research, including its relevance for the field of Visual Culture, is: *
  • Excellent 
  • Very good 
  • Good 
  • Suitable 
  • Poor 
  • Very poor 
  1. In light of its coherence, clarity, and relevance to the subject explored, the theoretical grounding of this article is: *
  • Excellent 
  • Very good 
  • Good 
  • Suitable 
  • Poor 
  • Very poor 
  1. The methodological approaches in this article are: *
  • Excellent 
  • Very good 
  • Good 
  • Suitable 
  • Poor 
  • Very poor 
  1. On clarity and consistency, the conclusions drawn are: *
  • Excellent 
  • Very good 
  • Good 
  • Suitable 
  • Poor 
  • Very poor 
  1. As for the academic style, journal citation standards, title, and abstract appropriateness, this article is: *
  • Excellent 
  • Very good 
  • Good 
  • Suitable 
  • Poor 
  • Very poor 
  1. The presentation, organisation, and writing of the article are: *
  • Excellent 
  • Very good 
  • Good 
  • Suitable 
  • Poor 
  • Very poor 

Detailed review for the authors* 

Please substantiate your scores. This review will be sent to the authors. 

Comments for editors 

(Confidential) 

Review form (reviews, interviews and visual projects) 

  1. The overall quality of the work is: *
  • Outstanding (must be published) 
  • Very good (must be published) 
  • Suitable 
  • Unsuitable 
  1. The work needs a review: *
  • Minor 
  • Considerable 
  • Major 
  1. The relationship of the work to the theme of the journal is: *
  • Excellent 
  • Very good 
  • Good 
  • Suitable 
  • Poor 
  • Very poor 

Detailed review for the authors* 

Please substantiate your scores. This review will be sent to the authors. 

Comments for editors 

(Confidential)