Reviewers' update
Welcome to our fourteenth issue - March 2013
Lastly, we outline a new annual recognition program that we have developed for reviewers,
Editor-in-Chief
How Elsevier is supporting Open Access
Throughout 2013, there will be many discussions between academics on exactly how open access will be implemented in their community. This is an international conversation, but will be particularly important in the UK. Read more...
Scopus: a must-have resource for reviewers
Everybody who reviews a paper for an Elsevier journal is entitled to 30 days access to Scopus. It is a nice incentive for somebody to review a paper, and also provides them with access to the broadest source of essential peer-reviewed literature. Read more...
Certificate of Peer Reviewing Excellence
We know that assessing manuscripts is not easy, yet it is highly critical to scientific publication. We certainly acknowledge and appreciate the efforts and time referees volunteer for the scientific community, and the decisive role they play in insuring the quality of published articles. Read more...
Research Trends and Elsevier Labs host their first virtual seminar
On Tuesday, 22nd January 2013, Research Trends and Elsevier Labs co-hosted their first virtual seminar: The Individual and Scholarly Networks. The event featured six compelling external speakers and a novel format aimed to maximise engagement. Read more...Reviewer Profile
In this issue’s Reviewer Profile we meet Dr. Annela Seddon , Bristol Centre for Functional Nanomaterials at University of Bristol, UK.
Annela graduated from Edinburgh University with an MChem in 1999 and began her PhD in the lab of Professor Steve Mann FRS in the School of Chemistry at the University of Bristol, in the area of bio molecular tem plating of organic-inorganic hybrid structures. Her postdoc in membrane protein folding was in the School of Medical Sciences. Annela was awarded a Life Sciences Interface Fellowship by the Epsrc in 2006 which she held at the Imperial College London and the University of Chicago, where her work was on the use of microfluidics in the study of protein aggregation and crystallization. Annela has been at the University of Bristol since 2009. Read more...
Opinion Poll
With major changes being heralded by the Finch Report and other developments, Open Access is a phrase on many lips.
Would you be more likely to review an article if you knew it was Open Access? Yes, no, not sure?
Click here to vote
Results from Opinion Poll in Issue 13
A big thank you to those of you who took part in our recent poll. Following a suggestion by one of our readers, Terry Tan, we asked you: What is a reasonable time period for a peer review? Our sister publication, Editors’ Update ran the same poll.
| Timeframe | Editors | Reviewers |
| Two weeks | 18% (65 votes) | 22% (107 votes) |
| One month | 49% (176 votes) | 59% (286 votes) |
| Two months | 20% (70 votes) | 16% (77 votes) |
| Three months | 7% (25 votes) | 3% (12 votes) |
| Longer | 6% (20 votes) | 1% (3 votes) |
Results as of 7 March 2013
Useful Links
Access our online reviewer information pack
Read our guidelines for reviewers
View our series of 3 reviewer webcasts titled ‘How to review a manuscript’
View a recording of our peer review webinar ‘A 20:20 Vision on the Future of Peer Review’
Authors’ home on Elsevier.com

