MARS
The International Journal of Mars Science and Exploration
_____________________________________________________________________________

Manuscript Review Template (version 1.3)

Please complete this manuscript review template, save the file on your computer, and then upload it using the links provided on the review manuscript web page. The name of this file is the same as the Manuscript Number of the paper you are reviewing. Please note that the comments you provide on this review template may be transmitted to the author(s). Comments intended solely for the editors, including your summary recommendations, will be requested on the review manuscript page prior to final submission of your review.

To streamline and focus the review process, your comments will be divided into three sections. In Section 1, we request that you comment on six specific areas relevant to the Standards for Papers published in this journal. In Section 2 we request that you provide a list of specific revisions.  In Section 3, we request any additional comments for the benefit of the author(s) and editors.

Section 1. Standards for Publication 

This journal publishes high-quality scholarly contributions that have not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere.  Please provide “Yes”, “No” and “Yes, but..” answers to the following six questions. A “Yes” answer will be interpreted to indicate that you believe that this aspect of the manuscript meets the journal’s standards. “No” will be interpreted that it does not. “Yes, but..” will be interpreted at some point between “Yes” and “No”.   If you answer “Yes, but..” or “No” , please elaborate, citing specific parts of the manuscript and supporting data where appropriate.  

1. Does this paper represent a well reasoned and honest effort to present and/or discover the truth based on the best available evidence? 	
(Yes | No | Yes, but...) 	
2. Does this paper contain references to important relevant publications and past work? 	
(Yes  | No | Yes, but...)	
3. Does this paper clearly differentiate between facts and speculation? 	
(Yes | No | Yes, but..)	
4. Does this paper represent sufficient progress and/or new information to justify publication ? (heavily “shingled” papers that overlap significantly with the author(s) previous publications, and “least publishable unit” papers are not acceptable)	
(Yes | No | Yes, but..)	
5. Does this paper have a clear focus, good organization, appropriate brevity and no extraneous material?	
(Yes | No | Yes, but..)	
6. Does this paper include references to other published work and/or supporting online data that are sufficiently quantitative and detailed to enable verification and use of published results by other researchers? (Authors who wish to receive "credit" for publishing in this journal must publish their results in a form that that can be readily used by other researchers.) 	
(Yes | No | Yes, but..)	

Section 2. Recommended Revisions
 
Please list any specific revisions you would recommend to make this paper suitable for publication. 

Section 3. Additional Comments  

Please provide any additional comments that may be helpful to the author(s) or editors regarding this paper. You may also upload an annotated manuscript or additional files as part of your review.