I am replying to Peter's letter about Kluwer. I had actually intended to reply to him, but of course replies go to the list. First off, let me say that the simplest solution to the point he raised is to discard the form and write your own report. Beggars can't be choosers and they are begging you. A similar problem with the referee forms used by NSERC, the Canadian granting agency. The forms are pretty useless for mathematics. Many referees follow them anyway and you have to wade through the irrelevancy to get to the meat, if any, of the report. Others ignore the form and simply write a report and those are the most useful. However, I will not referee a report for ACS under any circumstances and I guess those forms are indirectly responsible. I submitted a paper to them on fuzzy models of linear logic. Briefly, it showed that there was a *-autonomous category whose objects were sets and arrows were fuzzy relations. Now, I won't go into the other flaws in the paper as originally submitted, which might well have justified rejection, but the actual reason given for rejecting it was that it was not within the scope of the journal. Since it was squarely an application of category theory, I have concluded that I have no idea what the scope of the journal is and have therefore refused to referee papers for them. I believe that the real reason for the journal's problems are that the publisher deals with the refereeing process instead of having editors for that purpose. It is probably unimportant, since I don't really expect most print journals to be around in ten years. Michael