====== Artigo AABC ======
  * **Título**: An Entomological Surveillance System Based on Open Spatial Information for Participative Dengue Control
  * **Autores**: LEDA REGIS, WAYNER VIEIRA DE SOUZA, ANDRÉ FREIRE FURTADO, CLAUDIO DUARTE DA FONSECA, JOSÉ CONSTANTINO SILVEIRA Jr, PAULO JUSTINIANO RIBEIRO Jr, MARIA ALICE VARJAL DE MELO-SANTOS, MARÍLIA SA CARVALHO, ANTONIO MIGUEL VIEIRA MONTEIRO
  * **Periódico**: [[http://aabc.abc.org.br/|Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences (AABC)]]
  * **submetido em:** ??/??/2008
  * {{:projetos:dengue:aabc:regisetalaabc2008.pdf|Versão submetida}}
  * **status:** (24/11/228): aceito (minor changes) 

===== Referee Reports =====

  * **Carta Editor:**<code>
  REF.: 186/08
  To Prof. Regis, Lêda
  FIOCRUZ / CPqAM
  Recife, PE

  Dear Regis, Lêda
  Please find enclosed the comments made by the reviewer(s) on your manuscript "An
  Entomological Surveillance System Based on Open Spatial Information for
  Participative Dengue Control(186/08)"and make the appropriate amendments or 
  justify those that were not accepted.
  Please send a separate file listing any changes made (all changes should be
  clearly stated),and submit it with a file of the revised version at your
  author’s homepage, in the section "Manuscript waiting for new version".

  You are reminded that a manuscript sent back for revision must be returned in
  one month or it will be withdrawn.

  Cordially,
  M.L.Maioli
  Editorial Assistant - AABC
  Rua Anfilofio de Carvalho, 29/3rd floor
  Rio de Janeiro, RJ
  20030-060 Brazil

  tel: +55.21.3907-8146  fax +55.21.3907-8104
  web: http://aabc.abc.org.br 
  aabc@abc.org.br
</code>

  * **Editor's Comments:**
The article has been reviewed by two referees and both recommended publication after minor changes.
  * Editor's Report:
Recommendation: Publish after minor revision


  * **Referee 1 - Comments:**
{{:projetos:dengue:aabc:aabc_c_assessor_378_590.pdf|(Attached)}}

<code>
Referee 1 - Report:
Recommendation: The Manuscript is acceptable: moderate revisions

QUESTION: Is this an important and relevant scientific contribution?
ANSWER: Yes

QUESTION: Is this contribution of broad international interest?
ANSWER: Yes

QUESTION: To your knowledge, was the content of this manuscript already
published somewhere else?
ANSWER: No

QUESTION: Is the subject or concept developed enough to be worth reporting?
ANSWER: Yes

QUESTION: Are data sufficient to support the interpretations presented?
ANSWER: Yes

QUESTION: Are there any technical errors?
ANSWER: No

QUESTION: Does the title reflect the content of the manuscript?
ANSWER: No

QUESTION: Does the abstract present the main conclusions of the manuscript?
ANSWER: No

QUESTION: Are the keywords appropriate?
ANSWER:

QUESTION: Are illustrations adequate?
ANSWER: No

QUESTION: Can illustrations be condensed or eliminated without compromising the
scientific information of the article?
ANSWER: No

QUESTION: Are figure captions clear and concise?
ANSWER:

QUESTION: Are references current and adequate?
ANSWER:

QUESTION: Does the text need major rewriting?
ANSWER:

Rating
QUESTION: Overall Rating of the Paper
ANSWER: 4
</code>

  * **Referee 2 - Comments:**
Major Comments: This is a nicely conducted study which deserves to be published
immediately due to its high importance for public health.

Minor points:
Abstract: The first sentence is too long. I suggest the authors to split it in
two sentences.

page 3: the sentence " Upon studying the blood meal frequency of Ae. aegypti
field populations in Thailand, Scott et al. (2000) estimated that, on average,
a female takes 0.76 human blood meal..." What is 0.76, in which unit is this,
arbitratry units or microliters of blood ? Please fix this point.

Page 6: I suggest the inclusion of the ovitrap picture.

Page 7: the word architecture on the title  is mispelled. Please fix it.

Page 11: something is missing in the sentence " Para ampliar a capacidade do
setor....(DE ???) saude..."

  * **Referee 2 - Report:**
Recommendation: The Manuscript is acceptable: present form or minor
<code>
---Question
QUESTION: Is this an important and relevant scientific contribution?
ANSWER: Yes

QUESTION: Is this contribution of broad international interest?
ANSWER: Yes

QUESTION: To your knowledge, was the content of this manuscript already
published somewhere else?
ANSWER: No

QUESTION: Is the subject or concept developed enough to be worth reporting?
ANSWER: Yes

QUESTION: Are data sufficient to support the interpretations presented?
ANSWER: Yes

QUESTION: Are there any technical errors?
ANSWER: No

QUESTION: Does the title reflect the content of the manuscript?
ANSWER: Yes

QUESTION: Does the abstract present the main conclusions of the manuscript?
ANSWER: Yes

QUESTION: Are the keywords appropriate?
ANSWER: Yes

QUESTION: Are illustrations adequate?
ANSWER: Yes

QUESTION: Can illustrations be condensed or eliminated without compromising the
scientific information of the article?
ANSWER: No

QUESTION: Are figure captions clear and concise?
ANSWER: Yes

QUESTION: Are references current and adequate?
ANSWER: Yes

QUESTION: Does the text need major rewriting?
ANSWER: Yes

---Rating
QUESTION: Overall Rating of the Paper
ANSWER: 5 (high)
</code>

  * **Editorial Manager's Comments:**
Please, don't forget to {{:projetos:dengue:aabc:aabc_c_assessor_378_590.pdf|Read the attachments!}}