Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
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.
Society of Exploration Geophysicists
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...
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...
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...
Acknowledgement to Reviewers of OBM Transplantation in 2021
Acknowledgement to Reviewers of OBM Transplantation in 2021
The editors of OBM Transplantation would like to express their sincere gratitude to the following reviewers for assessing manuscripts in 2021. We greatly appreciate the contributio...
Acknowledgement to Reviewers of OBM Transplantation in 2022
Acknowledgement to Reviewers of OBM Transplantation in 2022
The editors of <em>OBM Transplantation</em> would like to express their sincere gratitude to the following reviewers for assessing manuscripts in 2022. We greatly appre...
Acknowledgement to Reviewers of <i>OBM Transplantation</i> in 2023
Acknowledgement to Reviewers of <i>OBM Transplantation</i> in 2023
The editors of <em>OBM Transplantation</em> would like to express their sincere gratitude to the following reviewers for assessing manuscripts in 2023. We greatly appre...

Back to Top