To my peers in reviewing

Abstract

This is my final opportunity as Editor to thank Neurology 's peer-reviewers. Over the past 10 years Neurology has obtained more than 100,000 reviews, including initial, special expertise, and re-reviews. I have selected the reviewers and read each review, aided by a team of Associate Editors. I cannot overstate my gratitude to our reviewers. In the course of my tenure as Editor, I have been asked many questions by reviewers and have received “comments to the editor” from most reviewers. This experience has been a privilege and has given me perspective on reviewers and reviewing; so, as a final editorial, I offer the following comments on reviewing. Reviewing helps keep reviewers up with and even ahead of a field, and it provides an opportunity to learn from the paper, the other reviewers, and the editors. Learning from others' successes and mistakes can improve one's own writing. Scientists have a responsibility to review others' papers because they expect others to review theirs. It's the right thing to do. Moreover, clinicians have a responsibility to review clinical papers because they expect the papers they read themselves to be well-reviewed, well-written, and appropriate for a clinician. I observed early in my tenure as Editor that if someone else wants to know how someone behaves when they think (almost) no one is watching, they should ask a journal editor. There are ways that editors can reward reviewers in addition to thanking them and publishing their names in the “Acknowledgment of Reviewers.” Neurology 's Editorial Board members are chosen from our busiest, most reliable reviewers. Good reviewers are also invited to write editorials. The cynic might observe that hard work is rewarded by the opportunity to do more hard work. However, physician-scientists have already been self-selected for work ethic and high energy. Occasionally editors can …