Issue 13

Welcome to our thirteenth issue - December 2012

reviewersupdate_resized 






Dear Reader,

It seems to come quickly but we are already publishing our last issue of the year. Over the last year we have had some great contributors to our newsletter and have addressed topics ranging from ‘research carried out around reviewer expertise’ to ‘visions for the future of peer review.’ In our March issue we threw down the gauntlet to our readers asking you to submit ideas that could significantly add to the current peer-review system, in a competition we called the ‘Peer Review Challenge.’ More than 800 readers took up the challenge and entries embraced all aspects of peer review, from improvements to the actual ‘mechanics’ of the process to how to reward reviewers. In this issue we unveil the winning entries in our first article titled ‘Peer Review Challenge Winners Unveiled’ and then follow with an article interviewing our three challenge winners. We also have a piece announcing the launch of CrossMark, an article identification service and our usual reviewers’ profile where in this issue we meet Andreas Lundh, who is based at the Hvidovre University Hospital, in Denmark.

And finally for this year, I would like to thank those of you who have written to me with ideas and shared your thoughts on articles we have published. It’s always great to hear from you. I would also like to make a special mention to those who have taken part in our opinion polls. The responses to our questions always give us food for thought and are a valuable way of testing the feelings of our reviewers on specific issues.

I hope you enjoy this issue and I wish you all the best for the New Year.

Yours sincerely,

Ursula Culligan
Editor-in-Chief

Peer Review Challenge Winners Unveiled

Clare_Lehane More than 800 readers took up the peer review challenge and entries embraced all aspects of peer review. In this article we unveil the challenge winner, Simon Gosling, and the two runners up, Michael Muthukrishna and Koen Hufkens. read more..

Interviews with Peer Review Challenge Winners

Culligan,_U_543In our interviews with the three challenge winners we ask them questions about their winning ideas, titled 'Elsevier Reviewer Badges and Rewards,' Top Reviewer Incentives' and 'Peer Review Annotation Application.' read more..

Interactive Logo Helps Researchers Decide which Scholarly Content to Trust

Egbert_van_Wezenbeek One of the challenges researchers face is a lack of clarity around whether they are consulting the most up-to-date version of an article or research. To combat this problem, Elsevier and other Publishers have banded together with CrossRef to create the CrossMark identification service. read more..

Reviewer Profile

IMG_reviewerprofile_landingpageIn this issue's Reviewer Profile we meet Andreas Lundh, a resident at the Department of Infectious Diseases, Hvidovre Hospital, Denmark. Andreas shares with us what he enjoys most about being a reviewer and his vision for peer review in the future. read more...

Live Webinars for Reviewers by the EES Training Team

training-desk-logo The EES training team will be hosting live webinars on the 3 January 2013 and 15 January 2013.

Interested? More info, and registration at the Training Desk webinar page: http://trainingdesk.elsevier.com/webinars.

Not able to attend a live webinar? Please take a look at our new 2.5 minute instruction video at: http://trainingdesk.elsevier.com/products/Author-and-Reviewers-Area.

Opinion Poll

Issue 37 of Elsevier’s Editors’ Update carried this poll, which was submitted by one of their readers – Terry Tan. We would also be interested in hearing our reviewers’ opinions on this question.


What is a reasonable time period for a peer review?

Two weeks, one month, two months, three months, longer?

Click here to vote. You can see how our Editors responded on the Editors’ Update homepage.

Results from Opinion Poll in Issue 12
As an author, reviewer and reader of scholarly articles, do you think it adds value to the published article if reviewer reports and the author’s response are made available as supplementary online material? (Results as of 12 Dec 2012)

Yes: 58.8% (163 responses)
No: 33.9% (90 responses)
Don’t know: 7.2% (20 responses)

Useful Links

Download this newsletter as a PDF

Subscribe to receive our quarterly Reviewers' Update newsletter by email

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

728x90_jobseeker_researchers