In reviewing the article, the reviewer should pay attention to the following:

Significance (How important is the work reported? Does it attack an important/difficult problem (as opposed to a peripheral/simple one)? Does the approach offered advance the state of the art? Does it involve or synthesize ideas, methods, and approaches from multiple disciplines? Does it have interesting implications for multiple disciplines?)

Original (Is This a new issue? Is this a novel approach to an issue? Is this a novel combination of familiar ideas/techniques/methods/approaches? Does the paper point out differences from related research? Does the paper properly situate itself with respect to previous work?)*

Quality (Is the paper technically sound? How are its claims backed up? Does it carefully evaluate the strengths and limitations of its contribution?)*

Clarity (Is the paper clearly written? Does it motivate the research? Does it describe clearly the methods employed (e.g., experimental procedure, algorithms, analytical tools), if any, described and evaluated thoroughly? Is the paper organized in a sensible and logical fashion?)*

Relevance (Is the paper closely related to the theme of the journal (broadly conceived)? Is the content interesting enough to a broad? Is the paper readable in a must-disciplinary context?)*

Technical (1): Structure of the paper*
Technical (2): Standart of English *
Technical (3): Appropriateness of abstract as a description of the paper *
Technical (4): Use and number of keyword/key phrases *
Technical (5): Relevance and clarity of drawing, graphs, and tables *
Technical (6): Discussion and conclusions 
Technical (7): Reference list, adequate and correctly cited 

Explanations for the above ratings and other general comments on major issues 
Comments on the minor details of the article
Recommendation for decision?