Please be completely frank in giving our office your critical opinion of this manuscript. Your report is solely for our guidance, and your name will not be revealed to the author unless you indicate that you wish it so.

Please feel free to write any notes or queries on the manuscript. In addition, a set of overall written comments would be helpful in our deliberations about the publishability of this manuscript. You should not feel compelled to expend a lot of time making detailed comments on the manuscript. We are essentially seeking a recommendation about whether or not to publish.

If you prefer to mark up the manuscript electronically, that is also fine but be aware that your anonymity may be compromised unless you take the steps below. (When using the track changes or comments features in MS Word, most people's computers are set up so our initials or names appear when somebody else positions his or her mouse over our comments - thus you'd no longer be anonymous.) To get around this, within Word, pull down the tools, then options menus and then click on the "user information" tab. Your computer may not accept a blank entry for your name, but you could type in the word "anonymous" for the purposes of this review; after you finish the review, you'd presumably want to switch it back.

Whether you comment electronically or in hard copy, we do ask for any specific comments that you might have that would improve the work. Please frame all of your suggested changes in one of two categories: essential changes versus "nice to have" improvements.

The following questions may help you to frame your comments:

1. Is the work original? Is the scholarship sound? What has the author tried to accomplish, and to what extent has s/he succeeded?

2. Is this a work of importance to specialists in the field? To what other audiences might it also appeal?

3. What are the chief books recently published on this subject, and how does this work compare with them?

4. Is the manuscript written in a clear, readable style? Is its organization suitable and effective? Does it contain unnecessary repetition? Could it be cut without loss of effectiveness, or is it about the right length?

5. How could the manuscript be improved? Are there any outright errors?

6. If this manuscript is a collection of essays, are they of uniformly high quality and do they work together to convey a central theme? Should any be elimination? Does the introduction make a contribution of its own, as well as tie the essays together?

We are most grateful for your willingness to referee this manuscript. Thank you for taking the time to help us. This office relies upon experts like yourself to ensure that publications meet the highest standards of scholarship. Please contact us if you have any questions about your reader's report.

Steven J. Dick, NASA Chief Historian
Steve Garber, NASA History Web Curator
Site design by NASA HQ Printing & Design
For further information email histinfo@hq.nasa.gov