Peer review remains one of the most important and often underrecognized forces advancing science in medical education. It is through this process that ideas are refined, methods are strengthened, and conclusions are challenged and clarified before entering the scholarly record. In a field where our work directly shapes how we teach, learn, and ultimately care for patients, the stakes of rigorous review could not be higher.
At Neurology® Education, peer reviewers serve not simply as evaluators but as partners in scholarship. Their thoughtful critiques elevate the quality of submissions, ensuring that the work we publish reflects methodological rigor, conceptual clarity, and meaningful relevance to educators and clinicians. In doing so, reviewers help transform individual manuscripts into contributions that can truly advance the field.
Over the past year, we have been privileged to work with an ever-growing and continuously dedicated community of reviewers that includes clinicians, educators, researchers, and trainees, each bringing unique expertise and perspective. Their efforts ensure that the science of medical education continues to evolve thoughtfully and responsibly. This work is voluntary, often invisible, and always essential. It is the foundation on which trust in academic publishing is built.
Peer review does more than safeguard quality; it is essential to ensuring that scientific discourse remains robust, data-driven, and grounded in evidence. Now more than ever, it plays a critical role in challenging existing assumptions, elevating diverse perspectives, and fostering open, constructive dialogue rooted in data rather than opinion. In medical education, there are often few opportunities for formal peer review of teaching materials, educational outcomes, and new instructional methods. It is precisely these domains where rigorous, thoughtful critique is most needed to ensure that innovation is not only creative, but effective, generalizable, and grounded in evidence. In this way, peer review is not a checkpoint at the end of the scientific process; it is an integral part of teaching discovery itself.
We are deeply grateful to the reviewers who contributed their time and expertise this year. Your work strengthens not only this journal but also the broader community of educators committed to improving neurologic education.
As we look ahead, the landscape of academic publishing continues to evolve, shaped by new technologies, changing dissemination models, and increasing demands for transparency and impact. Through all of this, the role of the peer reviewer remains constant: to uphold standards, to advance science of teaching and training, and to ensure that what we publish meaningfully improves how we teach and how we care for patients.
To our reviewers: thank you. Your contributions are the reason this work matters.
Top Reviewers of 2025
Editorial Board Members:
Elizabeth A. Coon
Zachary N. London
Andrew M. Southerland
Robert Thompson Stone
Stephen M. Sozio
Ad Hoc Reviewers:
Jorge Patino
Steven M. Lazar
Cheran Elangovan
Daniel S. Harrison
Nicolas A. Morris
The list below includes reviewers who returned a review between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2025. Reviewers with 1 asterisk have reviewed 5 or more articles while 2 asterisks indicate that the reviewer has reviewed 10 or more articles.
Paula Adler
Dara V.F. Albert*
Catherine S.W. Albin
Chaitanya Amrutkar
Xiaoxian An
Corrado I. Angelini
Aileen A. Antonio
Suhas S. Bajgur
Gerald Bean
James L. Bernat
Miya E. Bernson-Leung*
Anand K. Bery
Sonal Bhatia
Tyson Burghardt
Richard B. Carozza
Joseph Carrera
Nikita Chhabra
Kelly Conner*
Elizabeth A. Coon**
Tirth Dave
Chetna Dengri*
Shefali Dujari
Cheran Elangovan*
Andres Fernandez*
Jessica R. Fesler
Anthony L. Fine
Jenna Ford
Katherine A. Fu
Prasanna Kumar Gangishetti
Joseph R. Geraghty
Shivani Ghoshal
Jaleed A. Gilani
Chris Gillette
Raja Godasi
Jessica H.R. Goldstein*
Rachel Gottlieb-Smith*
Patricia Jokl Graese
Scott N. Grossman
Preeta Gupta
Deepak K. Gupta
Daniel S. Harrison*
April Henry
Alissa S. Higinbotham
Chloe E. Hill
Sarah Hodges
Brendan Huang*
Nuri Jacoby
Sleiman El Jamal
Peter H. Jin
Lyell K. Jones
Renzo Figari Jordan
Ralph F. Jozefowicz
Tamara Kaplan
Rahim Abo Kasem
Wesley T. Kerr
Amer Al khalifa
Laura Kirkpatrick
Elizabeth Kouzmitcheva
Michael Shang Kung
Clare McGarvey Lambert
Douglas P. Larsen*
Steven M. Lazar*
Stephane Legriel
Aaron Levy
Grant L. Lin
Jonathan L. Liss
Emma Monti Loebel*
Zachary N. London**
Max R. Lowden
Marie Charmaine Sy Lukban*
Ariel M. Lyons-Warren
Vincenzo Marcelli
Nina Massad
Tomoyasu Matsubara
Rebecca K. Miller-Kuhlmann
Miguel Silva Miranda
Murli Mishra
Jeremy J. Moeller*
Teshamae S. Monteith
Daniel Moreno-Zambrano
Nicholas A. Morris*
Vandana Nagpal
Divya Nayar
Jordan H. Newman
Kshama Ojha
Setareh Salehi Omran
Frédérique Ouellet
Gustavo A. Patino
Jorge Patino**
Pritikanta Paul
Michael A. Perez
Matthieu Paul Perrenoud
Stephen Joseph Powell
Hira Rafi
Subha Ramani
Jeffrey B. Ratliff
Margie A. Ream
Rachel Marie E. Salas
Stefano Sandrone
Veronica E. Santini
Deanna R. Saylor
Elke S. Schipani*
Suma Shah
Anita V. Shelgikar
Madhu Soni
Marinos G. Sotiropoulos
Andrew M. Southerland*
Stephen M. Sozio*
Robert Thompson Stone*
Isabella Strozzi
Harry W. Sutherland*
Monica Taing
Christopher Tarolli
Erick Tarula
Zahari N. Tchopev
Liu Lin Thio
Elizabeth T. Troy
Darren Tse
Simone Veronese
Ericka Shin Wong
Kathryn Xixis
Edward H. Yu
Aaron S. Zelikovich
Jiping Zhou
Disclosure
R. Strowd serves a consultant for Monteris Medical Inc and Novocure; he receives an editorial stipend as editor of Neurology: Education and has received research/grant support from the American Academy of Neurology, American Society for Clinical Oncology, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. He has received support as a lecturer for Lecturio and Kaplan. He receives book royalties from Elsevier. A. Doja is associate editor for Neurology: Education. Go to Neurology.org/NE for full disclosures.