Additional Suggestions to Reviewers of
Journal of Environmental Quality Manuscripts
The general purpose of your review is to assist the editorial board in evaluating the worthiness of
this manuscript for publication, and to help the author(s) improve the manuscript. General comments
concerning grammar, spelling, and content are wor thwhile. Your assistance in other ar eas is also
invaluable. Please consider commenting on the following as well:
Does the title of the paper clearly reflect its contents, and is it from 6 to 12 words in length?
Is an abstract present? Is it from 200 to 250 words in length? (Abstracting services often use
only the first 250 words of an abstract, so it is vital to be precise.)
Is the content of the manuscript worthwhile? If not to you, is there a segment of the journal' s
readership that would find it worthwhile? (Sometimes our more experienced and established
reviewers underestimate the value of manuscripts that might prove invaluable to those in new
areas of environmental quality.)
Do you feel that the author(s) attempted to review existing literature? Do you know of any
references that authors might want to refer to and discuss? Are references listed according to
the style manual? Are all references cited listed in the reference list and vice versa?
Quality of Writ ing
Clarity is vitally important. Whether or not you are an expert in the subject discussed, you
should understand the paper' s content. Read each paragraph carefully. Is there likely to be
confusion? If so, request that the author clarify. If you have some suggested revisions, these
are usually appreciated by authors, but please don't feel obligated to rewrite the manuscript.
Do the paragraphs flow smoothly? Is the manuscript readable? Can you make suggestions for
improvement? (Suggest using active voice.)
Is there unnecessary repetition? Can you suggest deletion of sentences or phrases or words that
add little to the paper?