Title:

(a)  Writing a report on the reverse side of this form,
(b} Check the boxes shown below under 1. and  2. ( YES or NO) [N.B.A "NO" assessment must be
       supported by specific comment in the report.
(c)  Make a recommendation under 3.

The Editor-in-Chief would appreciate hearing from any referee who feels that he/she will be unable to review a manuscript within two weeks.

1. CRITERIA FOR JUDGEMENT (Mark "Yes" or "No").
 

Is the work scientifically sound? see report below
Is the work an original contribution ?Y
Are the conclusions justified on the evidence presented?  Y
Is the work free of major errors in fact, logic or technique? See report below
Is the paper clearly and concisely written? Y
Do you consider that the data provided on the care and use of animals (See Instructions to Contributors) is sufficient to establish that the animals used in the experiments were well looked after, that care was taken to avoid distress, and that there was no unethical use of animals? Y

2  PRESENTATION (Mark "Yes" or "No").
 

Does the title clearly indicate the content of the paper? Y
Does the abstract convey the essence of the article? 
Are all the tables essential?
Are the figures and drawings of good quality? 
Are the illustrations necessary for an understanding of the text? 
Is the labelling adequate? Y

3. RECOMMENDATIONS(Mark one with an X)
 

Not suitable for publication in the OJVR
Reassess after major changes
Accept for publication with minor changes  X
Accept for publication without changes

4. REPORT   

Question one, yes to all questions. Except. Some standard deviations
are quoted at < 5%. I find this hard to believe(?). Maybe you could ask
for the actual data, to check this statement. I would anticipate much
more variability. Regarding animal treatment, is repeated orbital sinus
sampling OK? You will need to carefully review the paper for grammar
and sentence structure but generally clear and concise.

The work looks interesting and worthwhile, if accurate. I didn't check
the literature for the compound or similar work.

Question 2, presentation look OK, yes to all.

3 Recommendation - probably accept with minor.

4 Report

The work looks interesting and useful. I would expect greater
variability in the results so claiming CV% less than 5% is a worry.
Also, I'm not sure why the Cmax is so much higher after the SL dose. I
guess it means a smaller Vc. Less distribution out of the blood. Maybe
it would work that way so OK. A comment by the authors might be useful.
The scales on the X-axis for figure 1-2 are non standard and should be
changed.