Reviewers’ Checklist

Please Note: To successfully submit this form, your browser must be set up to send email.

If you prefer, you may print this form or download the text version and work on it in the program of your choice, eg. Word, Word Perfect, etc. When finished, fax or mail it to:

Geological Association of Canada, Publications Team
Department of Earth Sciences
Room ER4063, Alexander Murray Building
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, NL   A1B 3X5   CANADA
Fax: 709-737-2532

Reviewer:

We seek your view of the scientific merit and quality of preparation of this manuscript. These questions are not meant to be comprehensive but are used to illustrate the type of questions to consider during review of the manuscript.

A few guidelines:

  1. To provide the author(s) with the means to improve their paper, please comment objectively. On a separate sheet you may provide additional comment for the editor, keying the remarks to letters A to S.
  2. If a paper repeats previously published work, please point this out to the editor.
  3. Considering the effort that is put into a review, and its value to the recipients, please keep a copy until its safe arrival at the editor’s office is confirmed.

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

Text
A. Do you find errors of fact, interpretation, or calculation in the text or illustrations?
B. Has the author cited relevant literature?
C. Do all the parts of the manuscript warrant publication? Should some be condensed or deleted?
D. Should some sections be expanded to convey the message adequately?
E. Are the title and abstract informative and representative of the manuscript?
F. Are the approach, results and conclusion intelligible from the abstract alone?
G. Are the assumptions and analyses valid?
H. Are the references up-to-date and appropriate?
I. Extent to which the interpretations/conclusions are supported by the data.
     Low     Moderate     High
J. Is the paper:
     properly organized?
     to the point/concise?
     written clearly, using correct grammar and syntax?
K. To your knowledge, has any part of this material been printed elsewhere?

 

Illustrations
L. Are all figures, diagrams and photos necessary and appropriate? Can some of the text be better conveyed through more well-designed illustrations?
M. Is wording consistent between text and figures?
N. If the figures and data are not original, is proper credit given?
O. If the figure is more than one column width, can it take reduction to save space?
 

Overall
P. Is the work acceptable in its present form?      Yes      No
Q. How would you rate this manuscript?
     Excellent (requires minor revision)
     Acceptable with moderate revision
     Acceptable with major revision
     Unacceptable
Please give reasons for your choice:
R. Overall quality of the work:
     Excellent
     Adequate
     Unacceptable
S. Any final comments you believe the editor should know:
Last modified: September 8, 2006
Last modified: April 26, 2007
-- View Debug Messages --