The article's title reflects the content and purpose of the article?
Yes
Was the aim of the work clearly defined and successfully accomplished?
Partially
Does the article embrace contemporary issues in the area?
Partially
Does the article contain new and not published results?
Yes
Was the article clearly written and easily understood?
Easily understood
Conclusions illustrate the research results, recommendations and giving suggestions for future research
Partially
The references are full and grounded?
Yes
How adequate was the writing and used terminology?
Adequate
Remarks and suggestions to the authors of the article
- The section 'Method and/or Theory' would be more appropriate to be called 'Theory,' while the methods and methodology proposed should be separated into a distinct section and added as data to this section.
- From the results, the authors have only briefly outlined what they are proposing, while the review of other data occupies a significant portion of this section. It might be appropriate to move some information to the 'Theory' section and leave only the specific obtained results here.
I confirm that there is no conflict of interests regarding reviewed article.
I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have insignificant reservations, as outlined above.
Comments
Dear reviewers. Thank you very much for reviewing the article. We attach the corrected version. Best regards!