Skip Navigation

Cardiovascular Research 2000 46(1):1-13; doi:10.1016/S0008-6363(00)00016-X
© 2000 by European Society of Cardiology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Opthof, T.
Right arrow Articles by Janse, M. J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Opthof, T.
Right arrow Articles by Janse, M. J
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © 2000, European Society of Cardiology

Where do our reviewers come from?

Tobias Opthof*, Ruben Coronel and Michiel J Janse1

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-20-566-3265; fax: +31-20-697-5458

Received 17 January 2000; accepted 17 January 2000

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

In this issue we acknowledge the help of over 2,500 reviewers who produced more than 10 000 reports since we took office in June 1995. There is only limited information on the quality of such reports and on the way editors select new reviewers and thereby consolidate and expand the backbone of their journals. Although editors and not reviewers make decisions on the fate of manuscripts, it is obvious that an editor will not easily accept a paper when it has received negative reviewer's reports. On the other hand positive reports are no guarantee that a paper will be published because page limitations force editors to make priority decisions [1]. The characteristics of good reviewers have been assessed on the basis of information from the Journal of General Internal Medicine [2]. The outcome of this analysis was a little surprising in some aspects. Good reviewers were young, had . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Cardiovasc ResHome page
T. Opthof, R. Coronel, and M. J Janse
Impact factor of Cardiovascular Research in 2000: all time high!
Cardiovasc Res, April 1, 2001; 50(1): 1 - 2.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cardiovasc ResHome page
T. Opthof, R. Coronel, and M. J. Janse
Reviewer's recommendations predict impact: why you have to send us your very best work
Cardiovasc Res, October 1, 2000; 48(1): 1 - 3.
[Full Text] [PDF]