Peer reviewing in a new journal: Experiences from the first three years Editorial: The Peer-Review Process Pages: 61 - 61
Comment: Uncertainty in LCIA of toxic releases David Pennington Letters to the Editor: Comment and Reply Pages: 62 - 62
In reply to hertwich & pease, Int. J. LCA 3 (4) 180 — 181, “ISO 14042 restricts use and development of impact assessment” Manfred MarsmannSven Olaf RydingRita Schenck Letters to the Editor Pages: 65 - 65
Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment Helias A. Udo de HaesOlivier JollietRuedi Müller-Wenk OriginalPaper Pages: 66 - 74
How does iso/dis 14042 on life cycle impact assessment accommodate current best available practice? Helias A. Udo de HaesOlivier Jolliet Commentary Article Pages: 75 - 80
Why life cycle impact assessment is now described as an indicator system J. William Owens Commentary Article Pages: 81 - 86
Valuation, appraisal, discounting, obsolescence and depreciation Mark Deakin Commentary Article Pages: 87 - 93
Proposal for an integrated approach for the assessment of cross-media aspects relevant for the determination of “best available techniques” bat in the european union Jutta GeldermannChristina JahnOtto Rentz OriginalPaper Pages: 94 - 106
Environmental considerations on battery-housing recovery Wulf-Peter SchmidtHans-Martin Beyer LCA Case Studies Pages: 107 - 112
Energy analysis of solar water heating systems in india Jyotirmay MathurNarendra Kumar Bansal LCA Case Studies Pages: 113 - 116
Life cycle assessment: From Adam Smith to Aristotle David HunkelerRyoichi YamamotoItaru Yasui OriginalPaper Pages: 118 - 120
Conference reports: Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Wulf-Peter SchmidtHans-Martin Beyer Report Pages: 121 - 122
