ISSN 1589-1623 (Print), ISSN 1785-0037 (Online)	
Editorial Board of AEER
ALÖKI Applied Ecological Research and Forensic Institute Ltd.

H-1185, Budapest, Kassa u. 118

aeerjournal@gmail.com
http://www.aloki.hu

Paper reference number: AEER xxxx/2016
Title of Paper: 
Author(s): 
Referee’s name (please print clearly):	

The attached article has been submitted for publication. Would you please review it and recommend acceptance or rejection on the basis of points listed below. Please complete this checklist and make your comments on a separate sheet. Both review sheets will be sent to the author(s) anonymously. Please return this checklist and the comments sheet to the Editors (aeerjournal@gmail.com).
(If you are not in position to complete the review within four weeks of receipt, please notify us without delay.)

Type of article (please underline): scientific review, scientific communication, book review, forum article, other non-scientific paper (………………………………………………….)

In addition to answering the general questions below, it would be helpful if you could give detailed comments on the separate sheet provided.

		Yes	No	See comments sheet	
1	Is the subject matter suitable for publication in this journal?				
2	Does the publication fit to the standard format of the journal?				
3	Is this a new and original contribution?				
4	If a research paper, has this work been published elsewhere? (If so, please provide references to this.)				
5	If a scientific review, is it sufficiently comprehensive and critical?				
6	Are the appendix or attached database (if any) satisfactory?				
7	Is the review of literature suitable and satisfactory?				
8	Does the title clearly and sufficiently reflect the content?				
9	Are the abstract and keywords satisfactory? (If not please suggest amendments.)				
10	Is the paper of appropriate length? (If not, please suggest alterations.)				
11	Are the data cited in accordance with the subject investigated?				
12	Are the applied methods suitable?				
13	Are the applied biomathematical or statistical approaches suitable and satisfactory?				
14	Do the results contain remarkable statements?				
15	Are the interpretations and conclusions sound and justified by the data?				
16	Are the presentation and organisation satisfactory?				
17	Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable?				
18	Are the scientific and technical terms correct and accurate?				
19	Is appropriate reference made to other relevant work?				
20	Is the standard of English satisfactory?				
21*					
*other necessary question(s) and answer(s) of referee
REFEREE’S RECOMMENDATION
Please underline the appropriate answer.

Is the paper acceptable for publication in its present form?				Yes 
(Accepted as it stands, although subject to technical editing. Please DO NOT mark this if you have entered ANY significant comments / suggestions on separate page.)

Is the paper acceptable for publication with minor revisions?			Yes
(Revision required – authors must address the comments or suggestions.)

Is the paper acceptable for publication with major revisions?			Yes
(Declined in its present form but with an invitation to resubmit.)

Is the paper unacceptable for publication?						Yes
(Declined for reasons given by the referee.)

Please rate this paper with a cross in appropriate box.
GRADE	MERIT		
5*	Excellent, top priority		
5	Good, must be published		
4	Acceptable, but with modification by author		
3	Fair, but not essential, could be returned if there is pressure for space in forthcoming issues		
2	Fair, but repetitive and contributing little, low priority		
1	Not acceptable		

CONFIDENTAL COMMENTS TO EDITORS
(Please provide below any comments not for communication to the author(s))

Date:……………………………..………..Signature of Referee:………………………………………

REFEREE’S EXPLANATORY COMMENTS

Paper Reference Number: AEER xxxx/2016

Please give below typed comments suitable for transmission to the author