CHECKLIST FOR THE REVIEWER
Deep-Sea II: Topical Studies in Oceanography
============================================================================= 
A few guidelines

* To provide the author(s) with the means to improve their paper, please 
  comment objectively.  
* 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 separately, keying your 
  comments to the letters A-M.  You may of course also provide any further 
  comment, keying your remarks to the 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. 
============================================================================= 
Manuscript:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you agree to your identity being revealed to the authors(s) (yes or no)?

A  Is this topic   
   1   suitable for the journal (yes or no)?
   2   of broad international interest (yes or no)?
   3   significant (yes or no)?
   4   novel (yes or no)?

Please explain your answers to items A1-4 here (briefly):

B   Clarity of objectives (1 to 3):

C   Quality of methods/correctness of mathematics (1 to 3):

D   Quality of data (1 to 3):

E   Validity of assumptions and analyses (1 to 3):

F   Extent to which the interpretations/conclusions are supported by the 
    data (1 to 3):   

G   Overall significance of this work (1 to 3):

H   Is this paper   
    1   properly organized (yes or no)?
    2   to the oint/concise (yes or no)?
    3   written clearly using correct grammar and syntax (yes or no)?

I   Are the approach, results and conclusions intelligible from the 
    abstract alone (yes or no)?

J   Is the title informative and a reflection of the content (yes or no)?

K   Are the illustrations/tables   
    1   useful and all necessary (yes or no)?
    2   of good quality (yes or no)?

L   Is the referencing relevant, up to date and accessible (yes or no)?

M   Are the keywords (if provided) appropriate and complete (yes or no)?

N   Overall quality of the work (1 to 3):

============================================================================= 
COMMENTS FOR THE EDITOR
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

O   Can you suggest any improvements to this work, or any parts which could 
    be shortened or removed? [please feel free to use as much space here
    as you wish]



P   Is this work acceptable in its present form (yes or no)?

Q   Would this work be acceptable after   
    1   minor revision (yes or no)?
    2   moderate revision (yes or no)?
    3   major revision (yes or no)?

R   Is this work unacceptable (yes or 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 aper can be 
    "saved" by revision (yes or no)? 

Thank you.  Your cooperation is much appreciated.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:   
Name:
============================================================================= 
please email this form to either 
J Kleypas kleypas@ucar.edu
S Doney   doney@ucar.edu