The quality of any scientific journal is dependent upon the quality of its peer-review process. Reviewers donate their time for this altruistic activity and often receive little recognition. They are, however, selected on the basis of their expertise and each review received by the Editors is rated according to quality. We have been impressed by the quality of the reviews undertaken this year. Our reviewers have been of inestimable help in assessing the merit of papers submitted to the Journal, and they have often enhanced the overall quality of accepted manuscripts by their critical analyses and suggestions about how a paper might be improved. The overall quality of the journal can therefore be attributed in a large measure to the quality of their efforts.
The Editors would like to pay tribute to the following 306 reviewers who are listed in alphabetical order and who reviewed 1519 submissions from September 2014 to September 2015 inclusive (individual total in brackets). The Editors are very grateful for their outstanding contributions and look forward to working with them in 2016.
A. Ross Naylor, Editor-in-Chief
P. Kolh, Senior Editor
Article info
Identification
Copyright
User license
Elsevier user license | How you can reuse 
Elsevier's open access license policy
Elsevier user license
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article
Not Permitted
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
Elsevier's open access license policy
ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirectRelated Articles
Comments
Commenting Guidelines
To submit a comment for a journal article, please use the space above and note the following:
- We will review submitted comments as soon as possible, striving for within two business days.
- This forum is intended for constructive dialogue. Comments that are commercial or promotional in nature, pertain to specific medical cases, are not relevant to the article for which they have been submitted, or are otherwise inappropriate will not be posted.
- We require that commenters identify themselves with names and affiliations.
- Comments must be in compliance with our Terms & Conditions.
- Comments are not peer-reviewed.
