What should the review contain?

The thesis analysis of the book is given, the significance of this article in practical activities. In conclusion, the reviewer should write recommendations for the publication of the article or indicate the impossibility of publishing the material. The reviewer’s negative decision must be motivated. In conclusion, the reviewer’s signature and the corresponding seal are placed.

In order for the review to be a stylistically literate document, we recommend using the following turns: the significance of this research is undeniable … analyzing the peer-reviewed work … the paper writer in the article elaborates on the problem … the author expressed quite a bold point of view … this article is a sample of non-standard methods … the work is done at high level … the article is an example of a deep study of the problem … the title of the article capaciously reflects the very essence of it … the author writes about the problem … the need to write th on the mentioned problems is caused by the current state … it is necessary to note the accents accurately placed in the article …

The reviewer should write a review, guided by the following criteria: the table of contents of the article, the title and surname, name, patronymic of the author of the article; the abstract coverage of the issue to which the article is devoted; the relevance of the chosen topic.

It is obligatory to write an academic title or academic degree, position, place of work, name of the reviewer.

Often the question arises how to write a scientific review of the WAC article. Such feedback is usually written according to the general rules for drawing up reviews, is signed by the scientific supervisor with the stamp of the institution where the supervisor works. Reviewers can be both internal and external. The first type of reviews is usually signed by the supervisor. The review puts the seal of the university where the author studies or works. The second type of reviews is signed by officials of third-party institutions.

An objective assessment of the article is necessary, the strengths of the work, as well as its shortcomings, are ascertained.
http://assurance-sante.org/category/review/
assurance-sante.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2018-26
15000
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:KRDKUOQ4TOFIJ4KCDJSQB2GAZPGNHAQH
<urn:uuid:69692e24-941d-4252-8b6f-21c4568a6503>
2018-06-19T14:26:09Z
71.19.150.64
text/html
sha1:XTO5LTQLGTUJGNFJNVL5SZJNDHCJR3KL
<urn:uuid:aba384c9-5beb-4905-8ef0-033bb4aa530e>
http://assurance-sante.org/category/review/
response
<urn:uuid:5d014de3-f8a4-423b-9b57-f5ca30a2c7b5>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-168-75-198.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-26
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2018
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf