Questions of the review questionnaire

1	The manuscript correspond to the subject of the journal does not correspond to the subject of the journal
2	The volume of the manuscript corresponds to its content is insufficient for the disclosure of the topic is excessively large, requires reduction
3	The paper presents new ideas, approaches, methods, models, facts repeats known results presents only new facts
4	Original, previously unpublished data are presented in the manuscript in sufficient volume are missing in the manuscript are presented in the manuscript in a small volume
5	The title is concise and corresponds to the content of the manuscript does not correspond to the content of the manuscript corresponds to the content of the manuscript, but requires modification
6	The abstract is of the required volume and reflects the essence of the message does not express the essence of the message corresponds to the content of the manuscript, but requires modification
7	The list of keywords is sufficient is excessive or insufficient
8	The formulations of the problem and the goals in the introduction are clearly given are unclear and require clarification
9	The Materials section characterizes the initial data fully (the place, terms, conditions of research, the size of the trial areas, the volume of records and collected material are indicated) excessively (the moments of the author's biography and unimportant circumstances are described) insufficiently
10	The used methods are adequate to the tasks set are inadequate to the goals are non-optimal
11	The used methods are new, proven are outdated are traditional
12	The used methods require conventional equipment require simple tools do not require tools require complex hard-to-get equipment
13	The methods used are described briefly but fully described unclear or not described described insufficiently
14	Methods of calculations (statistical processing, modeling) contribute to the solution of the tasks set are insufficient to solve the problems are redundant, not needed to solve the problems and formulate the resulting conclusion
15	Calculation methods (statistical processing, modeling) are presented in correctly written formulas with a sufficient amount of explanations are presented by incorrectly written or poorly explained formulas are not required
16	Data processing was performed using quantitative methods adequate to the task was performed with the use of quantitative methods not adequate to the task was not performed, but required was not performed and not required
17	The analysis of the materials is presented in the form of an adequate verified quantitative model of an adequate statistical model of a diagram expressing trends of an analytical non-verified model of discussing a number of facts
18	The dependencies discovered by the authors led to the establishment of a new ecological principle received a full-fledged ecological interpretation in a comparative aspect with common knowledge received an inarticulate, insufficient or inadequate, erroneous explanation are discussed in a trivial, speculative way
19	The area of extrapolation of the obtained regularity is described in detail in statistical terms with an exact indication of the conditions, periods, areas of its manifestation is not described is described verbally with an approximate indication of the conditions, periods, areas of its manifestation is described qualitatively and with respect to only some conditions (season, area)
20	The text is presented in good language, logically, consistently, completely illogically, inconsistently, with the involvement of unnecessary data or ideas structurally correct, but require stylistic editing too briefly, in telegraphic style or using slang and household vocabulary
21	Conclusions are adequate to the tasks and the performed work are inadequate to the material are presented, but not all correspond to the tasks set are redundant (namely) absent
22	Illustrations (Fig.) are easy to read, well designed, correspond to the presented material are poorly readable, oversaturated with elements, there are unexplained symbols are well readable, correspond to the presented material, but require clarification
23	Illustrations (Fig.) are completely necessary are too numerous, repeatedly duplicate the tabular material in the course of the presentation a diagram is expected, but missing
24	Illustrations (Fig.) are easy to read, well designed, correspond to the presented material are poorly readable, oversaturated with elements, there are unexplained symbols are well readable, correspond to the presented material, but require clarification the title and explanations are not translated in English
25	The names of the tables in all cases correspond to the content in some cases do not correspond to the content
26	The table contents are presented well are poorly structured, excessively insufficient (there are no representativeness errors, etc.)
27	The number of tables is necessary and rather redundant (you can remove the table ... ) is not enough, the text is oversaturated with numerical data
28	Literary sources are described in accordance with the requirements are described with factual or formal errors
29	Literary sources are presented fully, including the necessary and modern ones are presented incomplete or outdated are presented excessively, there is unnecessary self-citation
30	Literary sources (in the pdf file) have an English translation do not have an English translation
31	References are given to all literary sources not to all sources or to those missing from the list (namely ...)
32	Reviewer's recommendation: the manuscript is recommended for publication the manuscript should be rejected the manuscript is recommended for publication after minor revision without re-reviewing a substantial revision of the manuscript and a new stage of review are required