Review Form

Paddy and Water Environment REVIEW FORM

Date: Return to:

321 2

Dear Colleague: I would be grateful if you would review the enclosed manuscript. If you are unable to review it within three weeks of receipt, please send it back to me immediately. Most authors are more responsive to a reviewer's criticism if it is couched in constructive terms. Please be as specific as possible when citing poor documentation of results, superfluous passages, or inadequate referencing (i.e., identify the offending paragraphs and missing citations). Vague criticisms are of little use to either the editor or the authors. In general, the equivalent of 10 printed pages (not more 32 manuscript pages including references, acknowledgments, footnotes, tables and figues) should be considered the limit for any manuscript recommended for publication. In view of the number of manuscripts submitted every year, the editorial board is anxious to avoid publishing manuscripts which record yet another example of a well-known process or are concerned with phenomena of purely local interest. Author(s) Title of manuscript: (1) Is this manuscript of the quality you expect to see in a first-class international journal? YES NO (2) Do you recommend this paper, both from the standpoint of original contribution and effectiveness of preparation, as being appropriate for publication in Environmental Chemistry Letters? (Check one) YES, without change YES, with minor revisions POSSIBLY, but only after substantial revision and potential rereview NO, not without complete rewriting or reorganization and resubmission NO, not acceptable (3) Can the article be improved by condensation of text? Please elaborate (use additional sheets if you wish). YES NO (4) Does the author give proper credit to related work? Please elaborate (use additional sheets if you wish). YES NO (5) Which figures and tables, if any, may not be necessary?

(6) Is the manuscript in reasonable English? YES NO

If possible, on an attached sheet(s), please provide additonal details that may be helpful to both editors and authors. Include specific errors and omissions of fact, suggestions for shortening lenghty manuscripts and general comments on overall quality, scientific value and interpretations.