Message from the Editors to our ad hoc Reviewers

Le résumé fourni par la source

Neurology invites the help of reviewers from over 25 countries. Neurology received nearly 3,000 manuscripts in 2000, up 15% from last year. Over 90% of submitted papers were sent out for peer review. At least two reviewers consider each paper and over 25% have three or more reviewers. Revised papers are usually re-reviewed at least once prior to acceptance. Many receive additional re-reviews. Neurology depends upon the dedication and commitment of our ad hoc reviewers. The average time from manuscript submission to initial decision has been decreased to less than 3 weeks. Expedited papers are usually peer reviewed within 14 days. Our reviewers are expert and experienced. When we ask for the assistance of a new reviewer we always obtain at least two reviews from established experts. The busiest, most senior leaders in clinical neuroscience are among our best and most timely reviewers. The rewards for reviewers include the following: the knowledge that they are contributing to good science, the opportunity to gain perspective on their field, and especially for young people, the improvement of their own ability to effectively write and present scientific results. The reviewer is usually a superior scientist and a capable mentor. Our reviewers work anonymously. Neither the authors nor the other reviewers know their identity. The editors do know and respect this anonymity—but have gratitude and admiration for our reviewers’ generosity and commitment to shaping and mentoring our field. Listed below are the reviewers who completed reviews in the 6 months between April 2000 and October 2000. Those with an asterisk reviewed five or more papers, and those with two asterisks reviewed 10 or more—and some of them have reviewed 20, 30, or more. The Editors thank the following reviewers who contributed their time and expertise to the success of Neurology. Abou–Chebl, Alex Abou–Khalil, Bassel …

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.