Maintaining JGR-Atmospheres standards of scientific excellence depends to a large degree on the conscientious efforts and scientific judgment of its reviewers. The checklist provided below is to assist you in preparing your complete review.

Note that the paper need not agree with currently popular opinions or with your own view in order to be publishable. To serve its readership well it is important that JGR-Atmospheres provide a forum for widely diverse scientific views.

Use the following list as a guide. Please comment on each aspect in your written report.

1. Is the subject appropriate to JGR-Atmospheres?

2. Does the paper contain significant original material? Please list the new results in your review.

3. Are the principal results of the manuscript presented in the abstract? Can the abstract be understood without reading the paper first?

4. Is the methodology sound and are the assumptions clearly identified?

5. Are the data sufficient and of high enough quality to support the interpretations and conclusions?

6. Is earlier work adequately recognized and credited?

7. Is the paper well organized and clearly presented?

8. Are any parts of the paper (text, tables, illustrations, mathematics) unnecessary?

9. Can any of the illustrations be clarified, reduced, combined or eliminated?

10. Have any portions of this manuscript been previously published?

11. Is the use of mathematics correct and appropriate and are all symbols sufficiently explained?

12. Is the standard of English usage satisfactory?

13. Are SI units used in the manuscript?

Your written report will be forwarded to the author. Thus it should be prepared in such a way that your anonymity is preserved. Confidential remarks to the Editor should be included in your cover letter. In the report, please be as specific and constructive as circumstances permit so that the author develops respect for your recommendations. Please avoid exaggerated, cynical, or derogatory remarks.

Note that Reviewers may be asked to evaluate future, revised versions of manuscripts requiring significant modification. However, Referees are not normally asked to evaluate other manuscripts until a final decision has been made on the paper currently under review.