CHECKLIST FOR THE REVIEWER
Geomorphologia Slovaca et Bohemica 

Title:

Author(s):

1. How would you rate this paper based on your knowledge of the subject(s) covered?
Top 100% (completely innovative, likely to influence the whole science branch)
Low 0% (of no value, bringing no new information)

2. Is the title informative and does it reflect the content?
Yes
No
Please give details in your comments.

3. Has any part of the paper been according to your knowledge published previously, or is it a part of another manuscript? If so, please specify. 
Yes
No
Please give details in your comments.

4. Are the objectives, salient features and important results stated in the abstract? 
Yes
No
Please give details in your comments.

5. Is the aim of the article well-defined and fulfilled?
Yes
No
Please give details in your comments.

6. Is the structure of the contribution suitable and logical?
Yes
No
Please give details in your comments.

7. Are the data and other input information available sufficient to justify the interpretations and conclusions? 
Yes
No
Please give details in your comments.

8. Does the author give an indication of possible future trends?
Yes
No
Please give details in your comments.

9. Are the references up-to-date and accessible, and have all key references been cited? Are all references cited in the manuscript and vice versa?
Yes
No
Please give details in your comments of any citations that have been omitted.

10. Can you suggest any reasonable way(s) to shorten the paper? (E.g. can parts of the text be replaced by figures and/or summary tables? Can any of the illustrations be reduced in size, combined or eliminated?)

11. Is the language and stylistic level of the article acceptable?
Yes
No
Please give details in your comments

What is your recommendation?
Accept – unchanged
Accept – with minor revisions
Accept – with major revisions
Reconsider – after major revisions
Reject – lack of new data - see comments
Reject – scientific reasons - see comments
Reject – other - see comments

Please, type your comments: