CHECKLIST FOR THE REVIEWER

Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography

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 circle your answers.)

Manuscript being reviewed:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

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 A.1.-4. here (briefly):
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

(next page)
COMMENT FOR THE EDITOR

Manuscript being reviewed:

___________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Q. Would this work be acceptable after (circle one)

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):

_______________ _______________________________________________________________________________

P. Is this work acceptable in its present form?		Yes	No
Q. Would this work be acceptable after (circle one)
	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

Date:	Name (printed and signed):
_______________	_______________________________________________________________________________