VOJENSKÉ REFLEXIE JOURNAL
Armed Forces Academy of Gen. M. R. Štefánik, Liptovský Mikuláš
REVIEW FORM

Reviewer:  	
Title of the paper:	
Opinion on the originality protocol
Having assessed the relevant originality check protocol, we can conclude that the submitted article is / is not plagiarized. The hit rate was ........... %.	
Process of the review – please mark your answers with    X 	Yes	Partially	No	
1.	The title of the paper is relevant to its content				
2.	Abstract is relevant to the content of the article				
3.	The issue researched in the article is topical				
4.	The aim of the article is clearly formulated in the introduction				
5.	The author uses scientific methods 				
6.	The presented scientific methods are adequate				
7.	The author presents the applied methodology				
8.	The information sources presented in the article are relevant 				
9.	References are processed according to the standards STN ISO 690 and ISO 690-2.				
10.	Meaning of signs and relations among them is in line with semiotic rules				
11.	Structure of the article is logical				
12.	Processing of pictures and charts is at appropriate level				
13.	Linguistic, stylistic a graphical aspects of the article are at appropriate level				
14.	Appropriate terminology is presented in the article				
15.	The presented models, mathematical formulae and calculations are correct*				
16.	Presented results and conclusions are trustworthy				
17.	Presented results and conclusions are beneficial to further development of theory				
18.	Presented results and conclusions  are beneficial to the further development of practice				
19.	The author presents original results				
20.	The article is                                                                                        	Original scientific article	Review	
				
21.	Comments, suggestions and recommendations of the reviewer (in writing for points 1. to 20.):		

	
22.	Reviewer´s recommendations:	
	I recommend this article for publication as is	I recommend this article for publication  after minor corrections without further re-evaluation	I recommend this article for publication after corrections with further re-evaluation	I do not recommend this article for publication	

Date: 					     	    Reviewer´s signature: