Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Outstanding Reviewers
View through CrossRef
The 2013–2015 Geophysics Editorial Board has been working for one year now. My team of editors works with reviewers and authors to continue the tradition of providing a fair, professional, and timely review process. With the peer-review process, we strive for high-quality published papers. The authors, reviewers, and editors are all crucially important in keeping Geophysics at the top of the applied-geophysics journals. Reviewers are not often visible, but we rely on them heavily with the high number of submitted articles we receive each year. I am happy to recognize some of our excellent reviewers here. These nominated reviewers are all candidates for the Reviewer of the Year recognition.
Title: Outstanding Reviewers
Description:
The 2013–2015 Geophysics Editorial Board has been working for one year now.
My team of editors works with reviewers and authors to continue the tradition of providing a fair, professional, and timely review process.
With the peer-review process, we strive for high-quality published papers.
The authors, reviewers, and editors are all crucially important in keeping Geophysics at the top of the applied-geophysics journals.
Reviewers are not often visible, but we rely on them heavily with the high number of submitted articles we receive each year.
I am happy to recognize some of our excellent reviewers here.
These nominated reviewers are all candidates for the Reviewer of the Year recognition.
Related Results
Challenges faced in the peer review system in open access journals
Challenges faced in the peer review system in open access journals
The whole mechanism of academic journal’s peer review system process effectively depends on how editors manage the journal work. The handling of the peer review system will determi...
Identifying Patterns and Motivations of ‘Mega’ Peer-Reviewers
Identifying Patterns and Motivations of ‘Mega’ Peer-Reviewers
Abstract
Background. The demand for peer reviewers is disproportionate to the supply and availability of reviewers. Identifying the factors associated with peer review beha...
Structured peer review
Structured peer review
Background and objectives: Reviewers rarely comment on the same aspects of a manuscript, making it difficult to properly assess manuscripts’ quality and the quality of the peer rev...
Rethinking Grant Peer Review
Rethinking Grant Peer Review
The author is a professor in the Department of Opthalmology and the Program in Cell and Molecular Biology at the Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. I and oth...
Acknowledgement to Reviewers of Genes in 2016
Acknowledgement to Reviewers of Genes in 2016
The editors of Genes would like to express their sincere gratitude to the following reviewers for assessing manuscripts in 2016. We greatly appreciate the contribution of expert re...
Audit Reviewers' Evaluation of Subordinates' Work Quality
Audit Reviewers' Evaluation of Subordinates' Work Quality
Reviewers routinely assess the quality of preparers’ work as part of the quality control mechanism in the audit review process. We investigate whether reviewers’ assessment of prep...
Survey on Comprehensive Study of Fake Reviews and Reviewers Detection using machine learning techniques
Survey on Comprehensive Study of Fake Reviews and Reviewers Detection using machine learning techniques
Abstract: Individuals and businesses are increasingly using opinionated social media, such as product evaluations, to make decisions. People, however, try to game the system for pr...
A retrospective analysis of peer review at Physiologia Plantarum
A retrospective analysis of peer review at Physiologia Plantarum
An analysis of 134 reviews of manuscripts submitted to the North American Editorial Office of Physiologia Plantarum in 1993 compared personal/professional characteristics of the re...

