GeoEcoMarina

Manuscript Reviewer Appraisal Form                    

Return to Editor checked:

Cristina Poenaru                                 √         cristina.poenaru@geoecomar.ro

 

Author(s):  

 

Title:

 

Please indicate your response by marking YES or NO. Additional notes may be made in the margin of the manuscript where appropriate. Use additional sheets as necessary to answer the following questions.

 

1. Does this paper contain new and original principles or concepts?     YES        □             NO          □

                ….describe a geologically important area in an original way?  YES        □             NO          □

                ….constitute a useful review of the topic?                                      YES        □             NO          □

                ….report significant new data?                                                         YES        □             NO          □

 

2. Are the data available sufficient to justify the interpretations and conclusions?

 

 

3. Are the facts clearly separated from the interpretations?

 

 

4. Is the paper well organized?

 

 

5. Is the paper clearly written?

 

 

6. To the best of your knowledge, has any part of the paper been published previously, or is it part of another manuscript? If yes, please explain.

 

 

7. Can you suggest reasonable ways to shorten the paper?

                If so, please specify.

 

 

8. Can you suggest any improvements in the title and/or abstract?

                If so, please specify.

 

 

9. Can portions of the text be replaced by figures and/or tables?

                If so, please specify.

 

 

10. Can any of the illustrations be reduced in size, combined, eliminated, or significantly improved?

                If so, please specify.

 

 

11. Are any additional illustrations necessary?

                If so, please specify.

 

 

12. Are the references adequate?

                If not, please specify.

 

 

13. How do you rate this manuscript? (circle or Bold one)   Excellent     Very Good     Good     Fair     Poor

 

 

14. If this paper ranks low, what can be accomplished to make it into a top-quality paper?

 

 

15. On the basis of your review, should this paper be published by GeoEcoMarina following any necessary revisions?

 

 

16. How much revision is required? (circle or Bold one)    None     Slight     Moderate     Major

 

 

17. Please add any other comments on additional sheets. Please comment if you recommend rejection.

 

 

I agree to be identified to the author(s):

 

Signed: _________________________________________________

 

Name and Address: ___________________________________________________

 

______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Date: ___________________________________________________

 

Please send form to the Publication Editor listed above and keep a copy for yourself.       

 

From the desk of several other editors, with thanks:

 

Please remember that the authors are our peers. It is a common goal of the authors, reviewers, and editors to present important research in the best manner possible.

 

Please point out the good information and insights in a manuscript as well as the bad points. A review is well-received if both positive and negative aspects are pointed out.

 

Make specific suggestions that will improve the paper, since there is room for improvement with all manuscripts.

 

All authors may not have conducted their research with unlimited resources and in the absence of any constraints. Suggest a better approach if you know one, but do no necessarily insist upon it. However, the quality of the data remains important. Please make sure the conclusions are justified based on the data and existing knowledge.

 

Plan to read the manuscript more than once. Think about your reactions and comments before submitting your review. It is possible that your perspective will change with additional reading of the manuscript.

 

Make sure that you take a global perspective in your review as well as paying attention to specifics. Papers in GeoEcoMarina volumes must have broad appeal.

 

Do not let the manuscript suffer from lack of readability or understand-ability. Point out jargon and terms unknown to the general reader. Authors who need help with writing appreciate any help.

 

Require scientific integrity in the manuscript. Make sure that all ideas and information that are not common knowledge are appropriately referenced. The idea is to build on previous studies, so the manuscript in question must put its findings in the context of previous research. Additionally, please recommend publication only if a paper would substantively advance existing knowledge and wisdom. You may remain anonymous.

 

Kindly support and justify all of your comments and recommendations by elaborating on your ideas or providing examples. It does not help the author if you suggest changes but don’t explain how and why.

 

Please be prompt in your response to a request to review. Normal review time is one month. If you know you will be unable to review a manuscript because of lack of time or lack of knowledge in the subject area, please return the manuscript promptly to the appropriate editor. Also, inform the editor if you have been unavoidably delayed in completing your review once you started.

 

 

GeoEcoMarina Publications are resources for the geology community, and greatly benefit from the time investment that the review process requires.  Thank you in advance for your thoughtful participation in the process.

 

DePinto, J.V. 1995. Open Letter to JGLR Reviewers. J. Great Lakes Res. 21:1-2.

Waser, N.M., Price, M.V., and Grosberg, R.K. 1992. Writing an effective manuscript review. Bioscience 46:621-623.