Checklist for Referees

Checklist for Referees
Please e-mail to the Associate Editor with report

Manuscript # ____________

Referee Name:  ___________________________

For your choice, type an "X" in the [].

1.    I consider this paper to be either in its present form or after revision,

[ ]    (a)    definitely suitable for publication in JABES;
[ ]    (b)    marginally suitable for publication in JABES
                 (but possibly more suitable for publication elsewhere);
[ ]    (c)    unsuitable for JABES, but probably suitable for publication elsewhere;
[ ]    (d)    unlikely to be acceptable, either in JABES or elsewhere.

2.    (For papers for types 1(a) and 1(b) only), I recommend that the paper should be

[ ]    (a)    accepted as it stands (or with minor editorial modifications.  For a manuscript to be acceptable
                    for publication it must be technically correct and it must make an important contribution;
[ ]    (b)   accepted conditionally upon its revision by the author to satisfy the detailed criticisms attached.
                   Manuscript should be "accepted conditionally" only if the final product (upon revision as requested)
                   will be clearly acceptable; otherwise, the recommendation should be to return the manuscript to
                   the author with an invitation to resubmit after extensive revision (see (c));
[ ]    (c)    returned to the author with an invitation to resubmit after revision.

3.    (For papers to type 1(b) (possibly) or 1(c)), I suggest that the author should consider submitting the paper
       to the following journals:

4.    (Where applicable) The mathematical treatment

[ ]    (a)    is satisfactory;
[ ]    (b)    is erroneous;
[ ]    (c)    is pretentious, or unnecessarily complicated;
[ ]    (d)    is unavoidably complicated, but the paper could be made more easily readable by moving part of
                the mathematical argument into an appendix;
[ ]    (e)    could be condensed with advantage;
[ ]    (f)    could be made more easily comprehensible to non-mathematicians by suitable 'sign-posting.'

5.    The explanation of the biological background is

[ ]    (a)    satisfactory;
[ ]    (b)    inadequate;
[ ]    (c)    unrealistic;
[ ]    (d)    non-existent.

6.    The paper

[ ]    (a)    is satisfactory in style and presentation;
[ ]    (b)    could be shortened appreciably without loss of useful material and without appreciable sacrifice
                of readability;
[ ]    (c)    is badly organized and would profit by rearrangement of material;
[ ]    (d)    is unsatisfactory in literary style and requires considerable polishing or even rewriting by the author;
[ ]    (e)    suffers appreciably from the fact that the author is writing in a language not his/her own, and
                should be rewritten with the advice or assistance of someone with a better command of the language
                used (lack of proper English is NOT a reason for rejection).