A scientific journal is extremely dependent upon its reviewers who, in most cases, provide superb insights and comments. Together with my associate editors, I want to emphasize that the information we receive from our reviewers is discussed in the Editorial Committee and a decision is then made, taking into account not only the scientific information in the manuscript but also, which can be difficult to communicate, other manuscripts we have in the pipeline which might cover a similar topic or aspect.
In 2007 we introduced the rating of reviewers, we now present for the third consecutive year, the top list from the previous year.
In 2008 we received 760 reviews from 462 reviewers. Each review was graded by the respective Editor with a score between 1 and 100. To garner a perfect score, the review should include a general comment about the manuscript's position in the area under study and its scientific quality. Comments about particular strengths and weaknesses are important. Detailed comments about specific problems, e.g. errors and incorrect statements, should be included. In addition, suggestions on how a manuscript can be improved are valuable for the authors as well. Finally, detailed confidential comments to the editor are valued, together with a focused recommendation about a decision and an opinion about the potential for publication after revision.
Table 1 presents those reviewers who received grades of 95–100 for one or more reviews. To achieve such high scoring requires a lot of effort in order to provide the guidance that I mentioned above.
Table 1.
Reviewers who received grades of 95–100 for at least one review in 2008
| Reviewer rating | Reviewer name |
|---|---|
| 100 | Eloisa Arbustini |
| 100 | Harry Crijns |
| 100 | Thibaud Damy |
| 100 | Marc De Buyzere |
| 100 | Giovanni de Simone |
| 100 | Justin Ezekowitz |
| 100 | Michael Fowler |
| 100 | Rob Hermans |
| 100 | Bengt Jönsson |
| 100 | Jan Karlsson |
| 100 | Alan Rigby |
| 100 | Frans Rutten |
| 100 | Benjamin Scirica |
| 100 | Charles Taft |
| 100 | John Teerlink |
| 95 | Keith Aaronson |
| 95 | Robert Anderson |
| 95 | Eloisa Arbustini |
| 95 | Stéphane Arques |
| 95 | Carina Blomström Lundqvist |
| 95 | Michael Böhm |
| 95 | Vernon Bonarjee |
| 95 | Andrew Clark |
| 95 | Ulf Dahlstrom |
| 95 | Michael Davies |
| 95 | Bart De Boeck |
| 95 | Maurizio Gasparini |
| 95 | Edoardo Gronda |
| 95 | Marco Guazzi |
| 95 | Finn Gustafsson |
| 95 | Daniel Holmgren |
| 95 | Roger Hullin |
| 95 | Lee Ingle |
| 95 | John Kjekshus |
| 95 | Franz Kleber |
| 95 | Marvin Konstam |
| 95 | Aldo Maggioni |
| 95 | Mathew Maurer |
| 95 | Ken McDonald |
| 95 | Hugh McIntyre |
| 95 | Piotr Ponikowski |
| 95 | Elisabet Rothenberg |
| 95 | Verena Stangl |
| 95 | Duncan Stewart |
| 95 | Charles Taft |
| 95 | Ali Vazir |
| 95 | Ronnie Willenheimer |
| 95 | Ilan Wittstein |
| 95 | Faiez Zannad |
There were 52 reviews which received the top scores. In addition, another 65 reviews were graded with 90. A special thanks goes to Hugh McIntyre who is on the list for the third consecutive year! The following reviewers completed at least five reviews in 2008: Toshihisa Anzai, Viviane Conraads, Gadi Cotter, Marc De Buyzere, Yutaka Furukawa, Daniel Holmgren, Hugh McIntyre, and Fabrice Prunier.
Together with my Associate Editors, I want to express my sincere appreciation for the important work that our reviewers provide and I appreciate your continued support.