The interpretation of the results makes the link between relevant discussion/theory developed in the literature review and the research question; The discussion presents contributions to theory and practice.

Very good (5 stars): Very strong connection between analysis and discussion/conclusions; no inconsistencies. Responds in the discussion part clearly to the general and specific research question(s). Formulates appropriate implications and recommendations in the discussion part.

Good/satisfactory (2,5 stars): The interpretation of the results generally links to relevant discussion/theory developed in the literature review and the research question but is not fully developed or unclear; The discussion presents some contributions to theory and practice. Reasonable connection between analysis and discussion/conclusions; there are some inconsistencies. Responds in the discussion part mostly correctly to the general and specific research question(s).

Unsatisfactory (1 star): The discussion is insufficiently developed and does not take the results in the light of the literature/theory presented to its full potential. Contributions to theory and practice are underdeveloped, are lacking or are not relevant. No or weak connection between analysis and discussion/conclusions; many inconsistencies. No or weak response in the discussion part to the general research question(s).

Registration period:

Submission period: