CHECKLIST FOR THE REVIEWER

A few guidelines

* To provide the author(s) with the means to improve their paper, please comment objectively. On a separate sheet you may provide comment for the editor that you may feel necessary.

* Please document statements adequately.

* If a paper repeats previously published work please point this out to the editor.

* Please explain the reasons for your answers on separate sheets, keying your comments to the letters A-M. You may of course also provide any further comment, keying your remarks to numbers in the margin of the manuscript

* Some of the questions that follow should be answered on a scale of 1 to 3, where 1 is the highest rank and 3 is the lowest. (Please encircle your answers.)

Manuscript:

Do you agree to your identity being revealed to the author(s)? Yes No

A. Is this topic 1. suitable for the journal? Yes No

2. of broad international interest? Yes No

3. significant? Yes No

4. novel? Yes No

Please explain your answers to items A1-4 here (briefly):

High Low

B. Clarity of objectives: 1 2 3

C. Quality of methods/correctness of mathematics: 1 2 3

D. Quality of data: 1 2 3

E. Validity of assumptions and analyses: 1 2 3

F. Extent to which the interpretations/conclusions are supported by the data: 1 2 3

G. Overall significance of this work: 1 2 3

H. Is this paper 1. properly organized? Yes No

2. to the point/concise? Yes No

3. written clearly using correct grammar and syntax? Yes No

I. Are the approach, results and conclusions intelligible from the abstract alone? Yes No

J. Is the title informative and a reflection of the content? Yes No

K. Are the illustrations/tables 1. useful and all necessary? Yes No

2. of good quality? Yes No

L. Is the referencing relevant, up to date and accessible? Yes No

M. Are the keywords (if provided) appropriate and complete? Yes No

N. Overall quality of the work: 1 2 3

COMMENT FOR THE EDITOR

Manuscript:

O. Can you suggest any improvements to this work, or any parts which could be shortened or removed?

P. Is this work acceptable in its present form? Yes No

Q. Would this work be acceptable after 1 minor revision?

2 moderate revision?

3 major revision?

R. Is this work unacceptable? Yes No

Please ensure that your final evaluation accords with your answers to the questions,

especially should you be considering major revision or rejection.

S. Should you recommend major revision, do you believe this paper can be "saved" by revision? Yes No

Thank you. Your cooperation is much appreciated.

Date: Name (printed and signed):