Document re2pBNwJkxkNMDapKQqxkvxxV

ENVIRONMENT From the Editor: Dr. J. P. Lodge, Jr. 385 Broadway Boulder. Colorado 80303, U.S.A. An InternationalJournal 17 February 1982 Dr. R. D. Snee Consultant Supervisor Applied Statistics Group E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company Louviers Building Wilmington, Delaware 19898 Dear Dr, Snee: I have at long last heard from the second referee concerning your resubmitted paper, "Models for the Relationship..." Their comments are attached, As you can see, the reaction remains negative, and one referee, in particular, spells this out in considerable detail. The other is a trifle more charitable, but no more encouraging in terms of the actual criticisms he makes. Consequently, I feel I must again reject this manuscript. JPL:j t Enel. Published by PERGAMON PRESS TEH 0470521 New York Oxford Toronto * Sydney Paris Frankfurt ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT REFEREE FORM Revised MS. No 1920-1) TITLE OF PAPER: AUTHOR(S) ;....... JjModels ,,for #the Relationship, Between Biood Lead and Air Lead" R.D. Snee You are invited to referee the enclosed paper. If you are able to do this please return the enclosed card. If you cannot report within ten days, please return the paper without delay. REFEREE'S REPORT It will be of great assistance to the Editors if the Referee will answer the following questions: 1. Should the paper be accepted for publication ? .............................................................. ..................... If the paper is scientifically unsound or does not contain any material Which is of sufficient interest and originality to merit publication, then the paper will normally be rejected. If the referee is of the opinion that the paper falls within either^^h^^cat^gories, please stat^ ^reasons for this opinion. If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", then would the referee please indicate: 2. Are there any errors ?...... ............................ ........................................ .............--......... 3. Are there any omissions? 4. Are any sections obscure and what additions or alterations would remove the obscurity ?..... ......... .......... 5. Could any sections be omitted or shortened ? 6. Is the abstract adequate ? Is the title appropriate? ..................................................................................... Are all the illustratiOns/tables necessary, clear and suitably captioned?...... ... Have you any other comments?................ .......................................................... TEH 0470522 DUP050083343 N42472.01 AjlMd$PH^0/C ENVIRONMENT REFEREE'S REPORT Revised MS. No. ........... (This shat to be used for replies to questions 1-10 if there is insufficient space oh the Rafelree Form.) My problem is with the entire conceptual base and presentation of the analysis. The data are meager and to publish an analysis of these data is to confer respectability to the procedures used. The first part of the paper compares the log-log model analysis to other models; it is concluded that the exposure model is superior. The author does not comment on the confidence limits of the modelb, but one need only look at Figures 1A through IE to realize that the models represent a line through a buckshot pattern. By comparing one poor model to another the author focuses on differences between the models rather than each models ability to predict the*data. Let Snee show confidence limits of the lines in his Figures 1A to IE. The value of models is to predict. In the conclusion Snee indicates the exposure model yields a good description of the best avail able data sets. My difficulty is that I believe the description referred to. is poor and its variance is not presented explicitly, and that the best available data are not good enough for the purpose of predicting what the models purport to do. The sophistication of the analysis has exceeded the potential utilization of the data base. Figures 4 and 5 should have confidence limits on the prediction to show the reader just how poor the model predictability is. ' ' TEH 0470523 DUP050083344 ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT r ef er ee f o r m Revised ms . No ... 18.2Q-L.. TITLE OF PAPER: AUTHORS) : ... ................. ...... .............. *sP.t. ..?.?........ .............. ... ............. .................. ................................ You are invited to referee the enclosed paper. If you are able to do this please return the enclosed card. If you cannot report within ten days, please return the paper without delay. REFEREE'S REPORT It will be of great assistance to the Editors if the Referee will answer the following questions: 1. Should the paper be accepted for publication ? ----- If the paper is scientifically unsound or does not contain any materia) whi6h is of sufficient'interest and originality to merit publication, then the paper will normally be rejected. If the referee is of the opinion that the paper falls within either of these categories would he please state his reasons for this opinion. ISSSSStM, If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", then would the referee please indicate: 2. Are there any errors?............. ........ntT^T?.................... ........ .......................................... 3. Are there any omissions? 4. Are any sections obscure and what additions or alterations woyld remove the obscurity ? .......................... .... 5. Could any sections be omitted or shortened ? 10. Are there any aspects on which Yu consider another opinion should be sought?. ..... .................. TEH 0470524 DU P050083345 ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT REFEREE'S REPORT Revised MS. No. i .?.?j ?t t ,.,........ . (This sheet to be used for replies to questions 1-10 if there Is insufficient space on the Referee Form.) 74 (SJ-Hs&y, uAAc.* A^Zp T^cr sC*%- CLi/l dbu/ " b&frsf y?9c>/.^ /zArfcAbAi^ J1U <Z>cuCA^z srm> cAcUf^ At s&Cy^trzsf A/bofy y/ 4t yti, fj itr" st^ste*<ALaj/ ^,'sryjZ 8 (pAlUk <Zrv p> A^u^f \}al v *> fa 4k A&t c u c &Z&'k *' 60 J0V& S#, tfcA^7 >-ce L T+ Co (Asyz&AzZst, Cs&& DUP050083346