Koedoe – African Protected Area Conservation and Science
Reviewer report
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for agreeing to review this manuscript. Your contribution of valuable time and energy is
much appreciated by me, the authors, as well as the readers of this journal.
Please return your report before the deadline assigned by the Editor. If you are not able to meet the
deadline, then please contact me (Koedoe@sanparks.org).
Yours sincerely
Llewellyn C Foxcroft
Editor-in-Chief: Koedoe
___________________________________________________________________________________
Manuscript Number:
Title:
Authors:
___________________________________________________________________________________
Confidential comments to the editor:
___________________________________________________________________________________
General comments to the authors:
Specific comments:
1.
Title (Is it suitable? Does it reflect the content? Can it be improved?)
2.
Abstract (Is it informative? Are the main results and conclusions conveyed?)
3.
Keywords (Are sufficient keywords presented? Are they useful? Are they already containted in
the title?)
4.
Arrangement / Organization (Is it well organized? Flow clearly and logically?)
5.
Length of article (Is it within the word limit? Is the length justifiable? Limit- research article
3500 -7000 words; communications and notes 1000 words).
6.
Introduction (Are the aims clear?)
7.
Methods (Are they adequately explained and can they be easily repeated?)
8.
Results (Are they described clearly? Is any amplification or pruning necessary?)
9.
Discussion (Is there sufficient depth?)
10.
Conclusions (Do they follow from the evidence presented?)
11.
Literature (Is the literature sufficient and relevant? Is there a body of literature that is missing?)
12.
Use of tables (Are the tables necessary? Do they duplicate figures? Are they in the standard
layout?)
13.
Use of figures (Are the figures necessary? Do they duplicate tables? Are they clear, well
designed and easy to interpret?)
14.
References (Are the references all included / obvious omissions? Correctly captured?)
15.
Language / Grammar (Is it well written in clear concise English?)
16.
Validity of conclusions (Do the conclusions follow from the evidence presented?)
17.
Errors (Any errors observed?)
18.
19.
Additional observations
Overall impression of paper as a contribution to science
Excellent; Presents an important new approach, new ideas or new information
Good; Improves significantly on previous work of its type or contains new interesting information
Average; Good work, but contains little novelty and may be of limited interest to most readers
Routine; No errors, but not likely to be of wide interest
Flawed; Contains serious flaws in, e.g., project design, data analysis or presentation
20.
Please rate the paper on a scale 0-100:
21.
Acceptable for publication in Koedoe?
Acceptable as is (apart from editorial changes)
Acceptable, but requires minor revision (To the satisfaction of the Editor)
Requires major revision and reconsideration (Requires re-review; are you willing to re-review)
yes
no
Reject, not acceptable for publication in Koedoe
22.
In which category?
Research article
Research communication
Natural History Note
Opinion / Issues in conservation / News and views
Distribution Note
23.
Do you wish to remain an anonymous reviewer?
Yes
No, Name: