Review form

Review form Medicine and Science in Tennis

Title: Does the article have a suitable title? If not, please propose an alternative.

Introduction: Is the introduction clear and relevant to the aim of the study? Unusual abbreviations, scientific jargon and acronyms need to be avoided.

Goal: Is the aim of the study/the research question clearly described?

Topic: Is the topic of research relevant for the field of tennis medicine and science?

Methods: Are the used methods reliable and is the description detailed enough to determine the reproducibility?

Statistics: Are the statistical methods that are used correct? If not, please suggest appropriate statistics and indicate the rationale.

Results: Are the results clearly described?

Tables and figures: Are all tables and figures relevant and appropriate? Is there an appropriate legend attached to the table or figure?

Discussion: In the discussion, the following order is preferred: the usefulness and limitations of the used methods, a discussion of the results (in this study and in relation to other studies), and finally a discussion on the physiological and practical meaning of the results.

Interpretation of results: Are the results interpreted correctly, sufficiently discussed and compared with results of other studies? Is the research question answered?

Structure: Are all parts of the article interesting, or are there any parts that can be shortened or deleted?

Composition and language: How does the article read? Does it read well? How is the use of grammar in the article?

References: Are the cited references relevant and recent? Are all important references included? Is the correct referencing format used?

Overall value: Is the article an asset for the readers public of Medicine and Science in Tennis? Be as honest and accurate as possible. Even if the article is not excellent you may point out the strong points.

[ Back ]