ACTA ZOOLOGICA BULGARICA Editorial Board

Institute of Zoology – BAS

Review of Scientific Article

Author:

Title:

????

??,??.2016

Dear colleague,

The editor of ACTA ZOOLOGICA BULGARICA would be most grateful if you could referee the above mentioned and enclosed MS. Please use this form for your evaluation and feel free to add comments on a separate sheet(s). The referees are anonymous, therefore do not sign the copy of this form or the comments on the separate sheet. A response within two weeks would be greatly appreciated. If you refuse to deal with the MS for any reason, please return the MS immediately to the Editorial Office. The Editorial Board intends to thank referees in the last issues of every year. If you do not wish your name to appear, please tick this box [Ö ].

REFERENCE FORM

1.Information contained / 2. Language
new / grammatically good
valuable confirmation / needs revision
repetition of known results
3.Title / 4. Abstract
adequate descriptive / clear and adequate
should be changed (see comments) / not represent the content
too lengthy
5.Technical and experimental methods / 6. Material and data
new / sufficient/adequate
adequate, well controlled / insufficient
inadequate
7.Statistical treatment / 8. Interpretation
adequate / adequate
erroneous, need corrections / not warranted by data
lacking but necessary / suffers from important omissions
superfluous / suffers from loose generalizing
lacking but unnecessary
9. Presentation and style / 10. Illustrations
adequate / number and quality adequate
too brief for clarity / some Figs. (……..) may be left out
too comprehensive, must be shortened / Figs. ………….. should be rearranged
contains irrelevant material / captions are not self–explanatory (Figs. ……)
quality of Figs. …………. inadequate
no illustrations
11. Tables / 12. Units, abbreviations, formulas
adequate / do not conform SI standards
Tables …………………….. may be left out / should be explained
Tables …………….. should be rearranged
no tables
13. References / 14. The paper is graded as
adequate / good
inadequate / acceptable with minor revisions
excessive / acceptable with extensive revisions
do not correspond to the reference list / weak
too speculative
too preliminary
15. The paper is
recommended
not recommended for Acta zoologica bulgarica

______