Skip Navigation

Cardiovascular Research 2000 48(1):1-3; doi:10.1016/S0008-6363(00)00190-5
© 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

Reviewer's recommendations predict impact: why you have to send us your very best work

Tobias Opthofa,*, Ruben Coronelb and Michiel J. Janseb

aDepartment of Medical Physiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands
bEditorial Office of Cardiovascular Research, Academic Medical Center, Room J-127, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-30-253-8923; fax: +31-30-253-9036 t.opthof@med.uu.nl

Received 31 July 2000; accepted 31 July 2000

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Six months ago we acknowledged the help of many thousands of our reviewers who helped us with the editorial decision process over the last 5 years [1]. The aim of editors is two-fold: they wish to make fair decisions, but they also want to select the best work from the submitted material in order to increase the esteem of their journal which is to a large extent reflected by its impact factor. Moreover, editors have to deal with page limitations. The task of editors is therefore not easy, also because reviewers in fact relatively seldomly recommend to reject a paper [2]. Reviewer's reports are in . . . [Full Text of this Article]


   1 Peer review
 

   2 Geographical aspects of submissions, publications, reviewers and reviewer's reports
 

   3 Do high reviewer's ratings predict future citations?
 

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
Submissions and impact factor 1997-2001: Focus on Sweden
Cardiovasc Res, August 1, 2001; 51(2): 202 - 204.
[Full Text] [PDF]

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]