Evaluation Criteria
Reviewer Assessment Criteria
Reviewers for Rural Governance and Green Development (RGGD) are requested to assess submissions using the following criteria. Ratings should support the final recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject).
| Criterion | Description | Rating Options |
|---|---|---|
| Relevance to Journal Scope | Does the manuscript align with RGGD’s themes (rural governance, sustainability, policy, digital transitions)? | Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor |
| Originality and Contribution | Does the research offer new insights, methods, or frameworks? | Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor |
| Theoretical Framework | Is the manuscript grounded in relevant theoretical discussions? | Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor |
| Methodological Rigor | Are methods and data sources clearly described and appropriate? | Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor |
| Use of Literature | Is the manuscript informed by current, interdisciplinary literature? | Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor |
| Structure and Clarity | Is the writing organized, coherent, and academic? | Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor |
| Policy and Practice Implications | Does it offer meaningful insights for rural governance or green development? | Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor |
| Ethical Compliance | Does the submission adhere to ethical research and publishing standards? | Yes / No / Needs Clarification |
Additional Reviewer Comments
- Strengths of the manuscript
- Areas for improvement and specific revision suggestions
- Confidential notes to editors (e.g., ethical concerns, plagiarism)
