Each review is complemented by a comment. In this pattern, experience from Finland and from the rest of Europe is being contrasted.  Accordingly, there are two approaches: a review on a Finnish measure receives a comment from a European viewpoint, while a review on a measure from a European country gets a comment from the Finnish side. 
 

Both the review and the comment relate to the same selected measure, its underlying issue and its impact. 
 

The reviews are part of a collaborative writing process, with continuous updating and revision. This approach is facilitated by using a template.  Each text entry in each cell of the template has to be identified by putting the author's initials and the date in brackets at the end (eg SM 07/08/99). Other authors are free to add their own entries (offering additional information or further views). Within a cell,  entries from individual authors are separated by a horizontal line (see tool bar above: "H.Line"). It is up to the editor to decide whether  entries within a cell should be left as single contributions or be synthesised.

The references provided at the bottom of both the review and the comment are intended as recommendation for further reading (not as an exhaustive collection of sources). The selected references should, on principle, be available as electronic documents: as full text or section or abstract. An alphabetical index of references across all reviews will emerge as part of the Finnbase, so that the individual Reviews will only require the brief form (author, year, pages). As initial input, however, review authors are asked to put in references with full bibliographic details. Preferrably, the references should be presented with some additional remarks for the reader.