Peer Evaluation
PAPER INFORMATION
POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
Manuscript No.
Paper Title
MAKILING BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION SYSTEM (MakiBIS):
DEVELOPMENT OF AN ONLINE SPECIES INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR
MOUNT MAKILING
Paper version
Author(s)
Magcale-Macandog, D.B., Raymundo, M.D.S. and dela Cruz, A. G.
Corresponding author
Lapitan, F.R.G.
Date ☐ received ☐ revised ☐ accepted
Section I: Review
Please expand and give details in Section III.
Evaluation
A. Content
1. Is this paper of original value?
No
2. Is this paper scientifically correct?
Yes
3. To what extent will the results will be useful to other scientists?
As what had been stated in the paper, the research will be a useful template for the national biodiversity information system.
4. How would you characterize the level of the paper?
The paper could be included in an international journal.
5. Is the bibliography reasonable?
Yes
B. Presentation
1. Is the title adequate?
Yes
2. Does the abstract give correct description of the content?
Yes
3. Is the general organization of the paper acceptable? Yes
4. With respect to content, is the length of the paper reasonable?
Yes
5. How would you rate readability?
The paper was very readable.
Section II. Recommendation
Recommendation
Different web-based applications such as Google Maps must be used in order for easy viewing of the place.
Geographic Information System (GIS) must be embedded within the system.
The database must be fully filled up in order to test the efficiency of the online system.
Section III. Detailed Comments
Please state why you rated the paper as you did in Section I and II. If you have indicated that revisions are required, please give the author specific guidance regarding those revisions, differentiating between optional and mandatory changes.
Comments
I think that the paper is not of an original value, because other countries had already been using a biodiversity information system. The paper is
POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
Manuscript No.
Paper Title
MAKILING BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION SYSTEM (MakiBIS):
DEVELOPMENT OF AN ONLINE SPECIES INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR
MOUNT MAKILING
Paper version
Author(s)
Magcale-Macandog, D.B., Raymundo, M.D.S. and dela Cruz, A. G.
Corresponding author
Lapitan, F.R.G.
Date ☐ received ☐ revised ☐ accepted
Section I: Review
Please expand and give details in Section III.
Evaluation
A. Content
1. Is this paper of original value?
No
2. Is this paper scientifically correct?
Yes
3. To what extent will the results will be useful to other scientists?
As what had been stated in the paper, the research will be a useful template for the national biodiversity information system.
4. How would you characterize the level of the paper?
The paper could be included in an international journal.
5. Is the bibliography reasonable?
Yes
B. Presentation
1. Is the title adequate?
Yes
2. Does the abstract give correct description of the content?
Yes
3. Is the general organization of the paper acceptable? Yes
4. With respect to content, is the length of the paper reasonable?
Yes
5. How would you rate readability?
The paper was very readable.
Section II. Recommendation
Recommendation
Different web-based applications such as Google Maps must be used in order for easy viewing of the place.
Geographic Information System (GIS) must be embedded within the system.
The database must be fully filled up in order to test the efficiency of the online system.
Section III. Detailed Comments
Please state why you rated the paper as you did in Section I and II. If you have indicated that revisions are required, please give the author specific guidance regarding those revisions, differentiating between optional and mandatory changes.
Comments
I think that the paper is not of an original value, because other countries had already been using a biodiversity information system. The paper is